Monday, 14 April 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr CARLTON —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Given that today we have yet another balance of payments deficit of over $1 billion, and given the urgent need for cuts in Government expenditure, does the Government still propose to cut $1.4 billion of expenditure off the Forward Estimates? Mr HAWKE —In regard to the release of the balance of payments statistics today, I believe that there is basis for some comfort in those figures. I am not suggesting to the honourable member that the problems in regard to our current account situation have been resolved, but I suggest that he will understand that the import figures have been buoyed by the import of two aircraft. Mr Burr —Come on! Mr HAWKE —The honourable member can say `Come on', but that is a relevant consideration. After allowing for seasonal factors, endogenous imports have fallen sharply for the second month in succession. The Government is fully aware of the obligation that is upon us in the budgetary process. I assure the honourable gentleman that in terms of the record we already have in previous Budgets, where we have pursued the path of expenditure restraint beyond any sort of measure that was ever embraced by our predecessors, we will continue along the path of responsible budgetary management, which will continue to produce for this country what the coalition was never able to produce. The best it could produce out of its processes was the worst recession we had had for 50 years. We got this country out of it, and we will continue to produce the economic results which are being reflected in the confidence the community has in this Government and its capacity compared with the hopelessness which continues to characterise the Opposition's approach to matters economic. Mr DUBOIS —My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to reports of the cancellation of the official visit of Yusuf Habibie, Minister for Science and Technology in the Indonesian Government. Has the Minister been able to establish whether there is any truth in reports that an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 10 April 1986 by David Jenkins provoked this decision? Has this development put undue strain on the Australian-Indonesian bilateral relationship? Will the Minister make all appropriate and strenuous efforts to ease such strain, and in particular to preserve Australia's interest in the course of current important bilateral negotiations which have major commercial interests for Australia, to preserve the existing Australian newspaper offices in Indonesia, and to encourage the Indonesian Government to process pending applications without any prejudice arising from the Indonesian Government's reaction towards this article? Mr HAYDEN —It is correct, as I have established this morning, that Mr Habibie, the Minister for Science and Technology in the Indonesian Government, has cancelled his visit to Australia and has done so as a protest arising from an article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 10 April which referred to Indonesia and Indonesian officials. The article has been described variously by representatives of the Indonesian Government as very insulting and a serious problem. Mr Habibie has said that in the circumstances he had `no option but to cancel his visit'. I have expressed disappointment that the visit was unable to proceed. It was regarded by the Australian Government as an important visit and as one consolidating a substantial improvement in the bilateral relationship which I believe this Government has worked quite assiduously to achieve. Shortly before Question Time today, the Ambassador of Indonesia, Mr August Marpaung, met me to register the serious concern of the Government of Indonesia in relation to that article and its implications and formally to convey to me that the visit of Mr Habibie has been suspended. Perhaps at a more appropriate time in the future the visit will be able to go ahead-I sincerely trust so. In my discussions with Mr Marpaung I took the opportunity of stressing that in our sort of pluralistic small `l' liberal-and the stress on the small `l' is essential in these circumstances-society with democratic rights the media had a particular role to fulfil and they did that with complete independence and without any control by government; that the views expressed by the media are not necessarily those of the Government and that there are no circumstances in which the Government could and indeed there are no circumstances in which any government of this country, at least as far as I can anticipate, now, in the future, or in the past would want to interfere with the freedom of expression of the media, except perhaps in those exceptional circumstances where the security of the country was genuinely and quite seriously at risk by disclosure. I urged upon the Ambassador of Indonesia to recognise these facts and to recognise that there is a distinction between the views expressed by the media and the views expressed by the Australian Government of the day on behalf of the people of Australia in pursuit of the interests of this country and in the promotion of a better bilateral relationship. In particular I expressed the hope that important bilateral discussions which have been going on between the two countries, some of which are of profound commercial importance to this country and Indonesia and some of which are of mutual political importance to Indonesia and Australia, would proceed unimpaired. Similarly, I expressed the wish that the existing newspaper representation in Indonesia, for which the Government would take much credit through the representations that it has made, would be allowed to remain in place and that any applications pending or subsequently made by Australian newspaper officers to operate out of Indonesia would be considered, to use the words of the honourable member for St George, without prejudice arising from the Indonesian Government's reaction towards this article. I have nothing further that I can helpfully add at this stage to what has unfortunately happened. Mr TUCKEY —In view of the Prime Minister's recent remarks about the need to rely on the integrity of his Ministers and there being no evidence of Ministers acting in other than a proper way, has the Prime Minister forgotten the Minister for Trade's involvement in a company, Coomel Pty Ltd, which was a shareholder in a company involved in a bottom of the harbour transaction? Further, why has the Prime Minister left unanswered the questions raised in the letter to him on 10 October 1984 from the Leader of the Opposition concerning the rather curious circumstances surrounding the transfer by Coomel to the mother of the Minister for Trade of the shares held by Coomel in a bottom of the harbour company? Mr HAWKE —This issue has about as many legs as the Opposition has principles and policies, that is, none. As far as my friend and colleague the Minister for Trade is concerned, I repeat again today in this House what I have had cause to say before: I have complete confidence in his integrity and the issue to which the honourable member for O'Connor refers has, I believe, been disposed of not only to my satisfaction but, more importantly, to the satisfaction of the people of Australia. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from Malaysia led by the Hon. Au How Cheong, M.P., Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Energy, Telecommunications and Post. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to the delegation. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Dr THEOPHANOUS —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. In view of the importance of defence industries for Australia's manufacturing base, what progress has the Labor Government made in the development of Australia's defence industry? Further, what are the prospects that our defence needs will, in the future, be met through Australian production? Mr BEAZLEY —I believe that since we have been in office we have assisted the defence industries and the ability of the Australian industry to support the defence forces in four important ways. Firstly, at the general policy level we have outlined a clear-cut and coherent defence policy for Australian industry based on ensuring the need to justify any premium costs against stockpiling and assurances of overseas support. Sectional industry policies have been developed by my colleague the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce and include sections of industry that would be important to us in any defence emergencies, such as aerospace, machine tools, shipbuilding, et cetera, and the honourable member would be aware that the offsets policy program has been strengthened. The second part of his question directly relates to a second aspect of government policy in this area; that is, our determination that, where at all possible, construction of major items of capital equipment shall be performed in this country. The most obvious cases are the frigate program at Williamstown Naval Dockyard, the new submarine project, where a decision has been taken to build all six submarines in Australia, and the FFG helicopter and the small arms project, all of which have produced a very substantial input into the defence industry in this country, or where they are about to take place will substantially enhance it. We have also reformed the capital procurement organisation of defence to pick up some of the inefficiencies which have been identified in some of the reports that have been recently forthcoming. Finally, and I think very importantly, we have taken steps in recent times to ensure that our actual government defence industries are performing at a level of efficiency that ought to be expected of them. Unfortunately, this has obliged us to enter into a process of consultation in some of those industries where there needs to be more flexibility in the labour force, and we are engaged in discussions with the Australian Council of Trade Unions on that matter and, of course, the workers who are concerned. What I have pointed out to them in the course of our discussions is that there is an absolute requirement, as far as this Government is concerned, that those in the government defence industry should be capable of being commercially competitive. Many of them cannot survive anyway on government work alone. There will be no subsidy from the defence budget for civilian production; therefore, there is an absolute requirement in their own interests to be commercially competitive. I have been very pleased with the way those discussions have gone so far. I think there is a very great willingness on the part of workers at the local level and on the part of the ACTU to understand the Government's considerable problems in that area, to understand that the defence budget is far from limitless and to understand that their own interests are served by a more efficient operation. Mr HOWARD —My question, which is addressed to the Prime Minister, refers to Senator Button's comment on the 7.30 Report last Friday that conflict of interests is only about `personal conflict of interest', about whether a Minister `personally would gain or lose financially as a result of the exercise of his judgment'. In view of the Prime Minister's own statement last Friday that a conflict of interest may exist in individual circumstances even though the personal interests of a Minister or those of his immediate family are not involved, I ask the Prime Minister: What definition now covers Ministers in the Hawke Government-his or Senator Button's? Mr HAWKE —I have no reason to add to the position that I have put. I listened to and I have a transcript of the statement made by Senator Button when answering a question in regard to the circumstances that confronted the disclosure of the fact that he was a director of a company which, unbeknown to him, held shares in the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. I have no reason to change and I do not change the statement that I have made to this House. Mr BLANCHARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Transport. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the report on the 60 Minutes program last Sunday week entitled `Death on Two Wheels', in which governments were strongly criticised for their lack of activity in improving motorcycle safety? If so, what is the Federal Government doing to encourage States to introduce stricter motorcycle safety measures? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for Moore for his question and the issue which he has raised. Yes, I did see the program, and I saw the follow-up to it. Whilst the program was received with differing levels of response from various sections of the motorcycle community and the community at large, it was a comprehensive approach to a serious problem that exists in relation to road safety. We have to recognise that motor cycles are a legitimate and economic form of transport. Apart from that, there are those who love to use motor cycles; they love that form of transport and the exhilaration that so many of them gain from it. However, current figures indicate that if we continue to kill people at the present rate, we will kill some 44,000 people by the end of the century-that will be more Australians than the number who died on active service during World War II. Motorcycle riders are eight times more likely to be killed on the road than are car drivers, and most importantly, young and inexperienced or novice motorcycle riders are twenty times more at risk than are car drivers. So, the problem is a very difficult one and it involves people who have a commitment to a particular form of transport but who at times are unable to recognise the dangers that are involved. This Government enjoys an effective position and harmonious relationship with the Australian motorcycle community which is fully involved through the Australian Motorcycle Council and the Motorcycle Riders Association. I want to mention the very constructive role played by Hal Caston of the Motorcycle Riders Association in the education programs, particularly for new riders. The reduction of motorcycle casualties has been a major priority of this Government and of those two organisations. I can say to the honourable member that the initiatives taken by this Government are part of its extensive road safety program. A package has been worked out by the Federal Office of Road Safety, the Australian Transport Advisory Council and the Australian Motor Cycle Council. That package covers such things as pre-licence off-road rider training, driver awareness programs, visibility or conspicuity of motorcycles and motorcycle riders, the use of running lights and head lights, lighter coloured gear, motor cycling braking standards and the evaluation of the 260cc limit on motor cycles. That point was raised in the program to which I referred, and very appropriately so. Some years ago a capacity limit was set on motor- cycles, but subsequently motorcycle manufacturers were able to develop machines operating with a far greater power whilst retaining the same cubic capacity in the engine. That has meant that young riders have got on the motor cycles, with little experience, and have put their lives in great jeopardy. We must recognise the value of the pleasure that motor cycling provides to so many people. But motorcycle riders are not helping themselves by seeking to blame someone else. I daresay that there would hardly be a motorist involved in a collision with a motorcyclist whose first response at the scene was not: `I didn't see the other vehicle'. That is the stock response of motorists who are involved in crashes with motor cycles. Motorcycle riders need to be better trained before they go on to the roads. They need to adopt more defensive riding tactics and the parents of young motorcycle riders need to become involved in this matter. The Federal Government, in association with the State governments, can persist with greater regulation and stricter regulatory measures. On the other hand, we want to see an end to the aggressive type of advertising of these machines-the kind of advertising that encourages the exhilaration and the thrills rather than portrays the risks involved. If there is one appeal that this Government can make, it is to the motor cycle industry. The industry should take a more positive role in the marketing of these machines and in the training of new riders. If we can get that kind of assistance from that industry, we will do more to reduce the level of casualties among motor cycle riders. I thank the honourable member for the question he has raised; it is a very important one. Each day on average someone in this country will die on a motor cycle. Anything that we can do to reduce that figure is well worth doing. It is a major priority of this Government and we will continue those efforts in association with all involved. Mr N.A. Brown —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister again to the statement he made in 1983 that public statements would be made by Ministers of their pecuniary interests and that those statements would be, to quote his own words in 1983, required to be provided on an annual basis with any significant changes in the meantime also notified. As the Prime Minister has now written to me today saying that these statements are required only for each Parliament rather than annually, I ask him: Firstly, when and why were those rules changed? Secondly, why was there no public announcement of the change? Thirdly, will he now make the latest batch of ministerial statements public, as he promised in 1983 that he would do? Mr HAWKE —Of course, I repudiate any suggestion that there is anything sinister in the non-publication of those statements. The important part of the honourable member's question is the third part. I say to him quite straightforwardly that, yes, I will make arrangements for the tabling of those statements at the earliest opportunity. Mr N.A. Brown —I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know these matters are-- Mr Peter Morris —When will you put yours in? Mr N.A. Brown —I will be quite happy to put it in this afternoon, if it will make the Minister happy. I have asked the Prime Minister when that secret change to the rules was made and why the change was made. He has not answered it and I suggest that he do. Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The Prime Minister has answered the question. Mr LANGMORE —My question is to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Is the Minister aware of the very significant revisions by the Australian Bureau of Statistics of the figures on mineral exploration and expenditure in the Northern Territory which show a rise in mineral exploration in the Territory during the last couple of years? Do the revisions more than double the published figures for mineral exploration expenditure in the Territory in 1983-84 from $11.8m to $24.2m? Does this entirely remove the statistical basis for the claim by the Australian Mining Industry Council that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act has caused a reduction in mineral exploration? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable gentleman for this question. Yes, the figures cited by the honourable gentleman are correct. It has now been conceded by the Australian Bureau of Statistics that a compilation error was made. The implications made by the honourable gentleman in his question are also correct. As I think I pointed out previously in the House, of the figures relating to mining exploration and the total amount spent on exploration, the highest figure was in Western Australia where there was no land rights legislation and in South Australia where there was land rights legislation. So basically it seems from the recent figures that have just been released in respect of the Northern Territory that that same general proposition holds. It is also true to say that the figures indicate that those people who are basically opposed to the existence of veto provisions in the Act were prepared to use the previous figures to advance the case against any kind of veto right. I have no doubt that those people who have advanced that argument will continue to advance it, irrespective of whether it is sustained by the figures. Equally, I have no doubt that what will influence mining companies in the Northern Territory, as everywhere else, will be other factors, such as the general state of the market and the kind of mineral deposit they are looking for. I have no doubt that, with or without a veto, they will continue to show an interest in mining development where they believe that at the end of the day there will be a profit. I think that is the heart of the matter, and the figures produced tend to support the view I have put to this House on more than one occasion, namely, that the existence or otherwise of the veto does not ultimately make a great deal of difference to the whole question of mining exploration. Mr HODGMAN —I refer the Prime Minister to my earlier questions on the flogging off of Belconnen Mall, including my still unanswered 11 specific questions to him contained in Question No. 3248. I also refer the Prime Minister to conflict of interest matters relating to the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I now ask: In the interests of the integrity of his office, will the Prime Minister now make full and frank disclosure of any benefits, pecuniary or otherwise, which he has received from the Westfield Property Trust, its principals and associated companies, including the Boulevard Hotel, during the past 10 years? Mr HAWKE —That part of the question from the honourable member which relates to the Belconnen Mall has already been dealt with, and I had thought that in the circumstances the honourable member for Denison had allowed it to die the death which it so obviously deserved. As far as the other part of the honourable member's question is concerned, the answer is quite clear: I have received no benefits from the Westfield Corporation, I think it is, to which the honourable member referred. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I preface my question to the Minister for Transport by informing him of the first of eight meetings held in Victoria last week by the Municipal Association of Victoria in relation to road funding. I also inform the Minister that at that meeting the Opposition's shadow spokesman publicly denied and repudiated the Opposition's policy on road funding to municipal government. Does the Government's policy in relation to local government road funding carry out the Municipal Association's policy? What would be the outcome of varying local government road funding in general revenue grants as proposed by the Opposition? Mr PETER MORRIS —At the outset I reassure each of the 839 local government bodies in Australia of the commitment of this Government to the maintenance of specific purpose funding for work on local roads or council roads. That commitment has been evidenced by our performance to date as a government. This year we are providing some $1,245m for road building and road maintenance, and within that figure some $258m is for local roads. That is a 60 per cent increase on the amount provided for local roads in the last full year of the previous government. As a Government we recognise the very important role-I stress this to the honourable member-of Federal specific purpose funding to local government bodies for local roads. We also recognise just how much the provision of an adequate road system means to country Australia. That is something the Opposition, when in government, lost sight of. In opposition it still has not regained sight of the importance of the road system to country Australia. Mr Hunt —We put the bicentennial road program in place. Mr Porter —And you are pocketing it. Mr PETER MORRIS —The facts are these: The Fraser Administration-those who interjected a few moments ago were part of that Administration-slashed by more than $500m the amount of money spent on roads. Honour- able members opposite can wail all they wish but the fact is that roads were a low priority under the Fraser Administration, which lost touch with country Australia. It turned its back on the people in the country. It lost sight of just what roads mean to the farm sector of this nation. Contrast that, Madam Speaker, with the performance of this Government. We have established the Australian land transport program, a special indexed trust fund financed by a set share of excise- Mr Sinclair —That is wrong; you are misleading the House. Mr PETER MORRIS —I know that the right honourable member is not interested in country Australia. I have been up his way. The special trust fund is financed by an indexed, set share of fuel excise for a period of five years and will ensure the delivery of money to local government, along with State governments, for road building and improvement. I can understand the concern of the Municipal Association of Victoria about the policy of the present Opposition. Not only did the Opposition walk away from roads when it was in government but also, in opposition, it has done the same. The Opposition policy on roads provides for the abolition of specific purpose Federal funding for local government for roads. That is the policy the Opposition put at the last election and that is its policy today. Local government does not want a bar of it, and least of all the Municipal Association of Victoria. If the Opposition has its way the 47,000 jobs that are provided in country Australia by Federal expenditure on roads by this Government will be decreased. People in country councils would lose their jobs as a result of the abolition of specific purpose funding for local roads were the Opposition ever to gain government. We will not have a bar of that. We will continue specific purpose funding for local government. We will maintain the trust fund we have already established and we will ensure that local government gets a fair share of the dollars that are available for roads. In short, the Opposition's performance when in government and now in opposition constitutes an absolute betrayal of the interests of country Australia. We will stand by the people of country Australia and ensure that councils get specific purpose funding for their roads. Mr SPENDER —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Following the fiasco a few months ago of the Trimbole matter, what steps did the Minister take and what specific rules did he implement to ensure that extradition applications were dealt with at the highest level of professional expertise? How does the Attorney-General explain the omission to take to London tapes which contained the primary evidence of conversations relied on by the prosecution? Where did the dismissal of the 10 major drug charges leave the prosecution? In particular, will the Attorney-General comment on the view expressed in the Age of today that `International extradition law prohibits prosecutions of charges other than those for which the extradition has been ordered'? Last, does the honourable gentleman accept that it is the Government's responsibility for the handling of the case against Cornwell in London? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable gentleman has on the business sheet for today a matter of public importance dealing with these issues and we will obviously be able to go into more debate when it is brought on. The questions he has now asked cover a number of matters. They relate, of course, to what action was taken following what was called the inability to get extradition in the Trimbole case. In that case- Mr Peacock —Where is Trimbole? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not know where Trimbole is. I make the point in response to the interjection that Trimbole left Australia on a forged passport when the honourable gentleman was in government. We have a few problems when people are allowed to leave on forged passports. In that case it became clear that no extradition treaty was in place-not that that was necessarily the reason for the final position. But it was disappointing to learn that the negotiations for an extradition treaty with Ireland had been put in a drawer as far back as 1977. So we had to try to do something urgently about that. The situation now has been rectified by my going to Ireland and actually signing an extradition treaty with the Irish last year, as I did with eight other countries. The proceedings last Friday in London related to the extradition of a person named Cornwell on some 19 counts. Extradition has been granted on seven counts. There is no problem with extradition. Mr Spender —Not on the drug charges. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Drug charges are a further problem in that the magistrate, who I understand might have been a lay magistrate advised by a legal clerk- Mr Spender —You have great respect for the English system, do you not? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member makes the point that the English were taking the case on our behalf and advice was given from England that there was no need to produce the tapes. Naturally, there was some concern about the tapes leaving Australia because we might not have been able to guarantee their security or accuracy once they left the possession of the National Crime Authority. Transcript was submitted. The magistrate, I understand, felt that there should be better evidence than that. Adjournment was sought but was refused on the basis that the magistrate was going on leave and would not be back until the end of May. In those circumstances, I do not think that we are precluded from making a fresh application with, perhaps, different supporting evidence. The matter of the tapes is of concern to us if they have to leave Australia. Mr Spender —What about copies of the tapes? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Copies of the tape are available, as is the transcript. Mr Howard —Couldn't they have been sent? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —They were not sent because they were not required by the English authorities. On that basis we can consider making a fresh application on the other 12 counts. I make the point that in this case advice was received from the Director of Public Prosecutions in Great Britain as to what evidence would be required. It was made clear that a certified transcript-as a matter of fact it was certified by the magistrate here as being accurate-would be sufficient. Mr CAMPBELL —I address my question to the diligent and dynamic Minister for Trade and ask him to note the response given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 9 April to a question about recognition of the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation, asked by the honourable member for Gippsland. Is the Minister aware that in 1955 bilateral trade with the countries making up SAARC was greater than for countries now in the Association of South East Asian Nations and exports to ASEAN today are 6.5 times greater than are exports to SAARC and imports from ASEAN are 6.7 times greater? Given that his Department has 17 trade commissioners in the ASEAN area and only three in the SAARC nations-all in India-can the Minister assure the House that Australia's loss of markets with SAARC nations is not the result of a poor and misguided allocation of his Department's resources in the past? Will the Minister immediately instruct his Department or Austrade to upgrade Australia's representation in the SAARC area, particularly given its proximity to Western Australia and the obvious potential markets therein? Mr DAWKINS —Some time ago the honourable member for Kalgoorlie suggested that he might ask the question. I am not quite sure whether I now recall all the details. The essential issue about which the honourable member asks is the relative importance as trading partners of the ASEAN countries and countries in and around the Indian subcontinent. He mentions that our trade with the ASEAN group has been growing very rapidly, or points out that our trade with it has grown relatively in terms of the other. Perhaps that has something to do with the attention that has been given to those two groups of countries by us or by former governments. The major reason for the change is that our trade with ASEAN countries has grown quite dramatically whereas our trade with countries such as India has remained at a very low and disappointing level. Mr McGauran —What are you doing about it? Mr DAWKINS —If the honourable member will wait I will add to what the Minister for Foreign Affairs said when he said that he visited India last year to improve and expand our relations. I was also there late last year. It is true that the new Gandhi Government takes a very much more outward-looking approach to the rest of the world and to trade issues in particular. I think it is quite keen to expand trade relations with countries like Australia. The Prime Minister invited Prime Minister Gandhi to visit Australia and, whilst I am sure we were all disappointed that that trip had to be postponed, we are all very much looking forward to the visit taking place some time this year. In the context of that visit I am sure we will be examining a range of opportunities which exist for expanding trade between our two countries. There are at the moment a few proposals in the early stages of development. We have, through some business relations between the commercial communities of Australia and India, established a new working group to look at trade in mining and heavy engineering equipment and products, and there are some quite optimistic signs that we can improve our trading position with India. It has to be remembered that in some areas we are competitors, and always will be. In other areas we can work together to develop third markets, but as well there are opportunities for expanding two-way trade between Australia and India, particularly in the context of the fairly rapid rates of economic growth that India has been experiencing and which it intends to continue to experience in the future. Mr KATTER —Though some time has elapsed since your elevation to the chair, Madam Speaker, there has been an equal lapse of time since I have got a question and so I warmly congratulate you on your elevation to your very important position. I refer the Minister for Primary Industry to his Party's promise before the last two elections that it would give urgent and meaningful aid to the Australian sugar industry because of the collapse in world market prices. I ask the Minister: Why has he procrastinated for more than three years, trying to bludgeon the Queensland Government into an unprecedented financial commitment to price support when no such demand was made of State governments under the motor vehicle and steel industries rescue plans? Will he accept that the Queensland Government has made a substantial financial contribution, including $50m in cash grants, to the sugar industry in its time of need, and will he immediately implement a $240 a tonne floor price for growers? Mr KERIN —First of all, I assure the House that I did not con the honourable member into asking me this question. It was a gentle question. He is having problems getting questions asked and I suggest that he approach the Leader and Deputy Leader of his Party because they seem to be taking up all the National Party questions. Unfortunately the honourable gentleman repeats a lot of tired old propaganda that both the Liberal Party and the National Party are running around with in Queensland. I have in my hands a document from the Liberal Party- Mr Gayler —Has it been leaked? Mr KERIN —It has not been leaked; there is nothing in it about the neutralisation of anyone. It is a quite straightforward document. The big problem in the sugar industry and in Queensland at the moment is the politics of that State. National Party members do not even believe in democracy up there; they have lined up a situation where they can win government, they think, with 34 per cent of the vote so they will not have to go into coalition with the Liberals. Mr Donald Cameron —Twenty-nine per cent. Mr KERIN —Twenty-nine per cent? There is a Queensland Liberal saying that they can win with 29 per cent. I do not know what the honourable member for Ryan says; he has lived with them for years. They really hate each other up there; there are no two ways about it. Now the poor old Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, has to go up there on a suicide mission. We have this great invitation. He is to go to Innisfail, and it will cost only $5 to hear the Leader of the Opposition in Innisfail on 21 April. Mr Hawke —El cheapo. Mr KERIN —Yes, el cheapo. Here we have yours sincerely, John Howard, saying: `We have consistently drawn attention to the problem'. He has spelt `consistently' wrongly- Mr Katter —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The answer is not relevant, and obviously the Minister regards the sugar industry as some great joke. Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr KERIN —I assure the honourable member for Kennedy that I am only just getting wound up on this. The Liberals have never asked a question on sugar here. I think that there were two desultory questions from the National Party last year on the subject, and that is about all. It then goes on, and it repeats the honourable member's line: `The Opposition have'-I guess he means `has'-`criticised the Prime Minister for his failure to deliver his 1983 election promise'. Here they go on repeating the big lie: `He promised to contribute $150m to the sugar industry'. Where the $150m came up, and the offer is still on the table, was in a decision by the Cabinet in Townsville in September 1985, where we said that the Government was prepared to put up $150m for the sugar industry on the basis of a contribution from the Queensland and New South Wales governments on price support, and on the basis that the industry itself would agree to deregulation, which was for the industry's own benefit. I have been trying to negotiate that package for a long time. One has to go back into the neanderthal workings of the Queensland Government to give some idea of the problem he centres on. Every time the Queensland Minister wants to get into a discussion or negotiation with the Commonwealth Government on this very important matter, the Queensland Premier cuts him off at the knees, and that is why he is resigning. He cannot take it any more. He is not allowed to negotiate; he is not allowed to perform as a Minister. That is the basic reason why we cannot get agreement about this industry. Then there is all this nonsense about the motor vehicle industry and the steel industry plan-that the Commonwealth Government did not require any money from the States on those. Well, as a matter of fact it did, but just look at the point. The big difference is that the Queensland Government totally controls the legislation of this industry-the Sugar Board, the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board-and if one wants to get any deregulation, the Queensland Government has to implement it. That is why the Savage committee report-which consisted of the two governments, the growers and the millers-said `You have to work together on a package relating to deregulation and adjustment; the whole industry together'. That is what we have been trying to do. It has only been the crazy old Premier of Queensland who has stopped us getting anything together. The final point on the Leader of the Opposition's little letter of invitation-I am trying to whip up a crowd for him-is that he is going to restrict government taxes. I suppose he will go back to more of the avoidance and evasion that characterised the Government when he was Treasurer. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present a statement of expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance for February 1986. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present a letter from the Auditor-General on the financial statements of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust for the year ended 30 June 1985, together with the text of a statement made in the Senate by the Minister for Finance on 11 April 1986. Mr. N.A. Brown-Briefly, may I ask your indulgence, Madam Speaker, to draw attention once again to the fact that the paper just tabled contains a statement, and we do not accept it as being a proper method of making a statement to this House simply to table it. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australian Safeguards Office for 1984-85. Mr BURR(Lyons) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BURR —Yes. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr BURR —When the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) spoke on Friday afternoon he made reference to a company known as Industrial Printing and Publicity Co. and, in the course of his contribution, he named the directors and I name them again: The Chairman, Ken Stone; the directors, Stan Bitmead, Donald McIntosh, John Button, Frank Nelson, Harold Souter, James Williams, Edward Parker, Jim Davis, George Crawford, Maxwell Burr and Frank Hurley. Madam Speaker, I want to assure the House and the people of Australia that I am not the Maxwell Burr mentioned by the honourable member for O'Connor. I am not a director of Industrial Printing and Publicity Co.-in fact, I have never heard of the company. I understand that this company has a close association- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has made his personal explanation and he will now resume his seat. Mr LLOYD(Murray) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr LLOYD —Yes. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr LLOYD —During Question Time today, the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) directed a question to the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) in relation to road finance, which subject was the reason for eight Municipal Association of Victoria conferences around Victoria this week and last week. The Association was very critical of the reduction in finance for roads, both rural and arterial, in regional Victoria by the present Federal Labor Government. The Minister, in his answer, gave the impression that the coalition Government, when in power- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Does the honourable member claim to have been personally misrepresented? Mr LLOYD —Yes, because in the question put by the honourable member for McMillan I was linked with this. He incorrectly assumed or asserted, as did the Minister for Transport, that there was a reduction in road finance by the coalition, when in fact there was an increase and funding reached its highest level ever. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. That was not a personal explanation. He was making an explanation on behalf of the coalition Government, which he is not entitled to do. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes, I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr HOWARD —I was misrepresented by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) during Question Time when, in his typical smart-Alick fashion, he endeavoured to score, so he thought, some political capital in relation to a meeting which is to take place at Innisfail on Monday, 21 April. He obviously needs a pair of glasses, or the Australian Labor Party henchman who dictated my letter over the phone cannot spell. I point out to the honourable member that there are no spelling errors in my invitation to Innisfail cane farmers and that I did not talk about consistently drawing anything-I spoke about constantly drawing things to attention. I did not get the grammar that the Opposition has criticised the Prime Minister for his failure to deliver wrong. I think that the person dictating my letter over the phone got it wrong and, if that is a measure of the technical competence of the Minister, no wonder the sugar industry of Australia is in such a disastrous mess. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned are deeply concerned that under the guise of ceasefire the Government of Sri Lanka has largely militarised Tamil regions and has now resorted to air ship attacks in highly populated areas and indiscriminate killings of civilians which is seen even by the Indian Foreign Minister as having genocidal tendencies. Your petitioners humbly pray the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government of Australia to intercede with the Government of Sri Lanka: to desist from airship attacks and seeking a military solution; to offer refuge under humanitarian and compassionate programmes, to Tamils who are fleeing from the violence; abandon all direct and indirect forms of repatriation to any Tamil who has sought refuge in Australia and grant them meaningful assistance to resettle; as a member of the Commonwealth, persuade the Government of Sri Lanka to pursue a political solution which will allow the Tamils to live in peace and dignity. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Grace,Mr Hollis,Mr Kent,Mr Price and Mr Staples. To the Honourable Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the government to honour its election promises to pensioners. In particular those promises relate to the following commitments: 1. That within three years of its election to office, a Hawke Labor Government would raise the level of the standard pension to 25% of Average Weekly Earnings; 2. That the lag time between the announcement of the Consumer Price Index figures and the subsequent adjustment of pensions would be reduced to one month, and 3. That the disproportionate tax burden borne by low income earners would be lifted. None of these promises has been honoured to date. Your petitioners are extremely angry at the failure of the Government to live up to its commitments and as in duty bound will ever pray that these serious omissions will be given the attention they deserve. by Mr John Brown,Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Lee. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Government should: pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices on 1 March 1986; not increase or extend fuel taxes; and maintain its tax cut commitments. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing policy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife,Mr Hodges and Mr Millar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of the Electorate of Farrer respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Government should: pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices; not increase or extend fuel taxes; and maintain its tax cut commitments. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the import parity pricing. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tim Fischer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government should: pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices; not increase or extend fuel taxes; and maintain its tax cut commitments. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Socialist Government should not continue to rob the taxpayers of Australia by failing to pass on the fuel tax cuts due under the Import Parity Pricing System. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains Tax Hidden Death Tax described as ``Capital Gains Tax after death'' Gift Tax Increased Company Tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately reject these tax proposals. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Fisher respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains Tax Hidden Death Tax described as ``Capital Gains Tax after death'' Gift Tax Increased Company Tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. We ask that the tax proposals be rejected. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The Petition of the undersigned showeth that there is widespread public concern about the provisions of the Bill of Rights, and especially the dangerous powers to be vested in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, and the failure to protect vital rights such as the right to own private property. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: (i) that the Hawke Labor Government not proceed with the Bills enacting the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, and (ii) that we the people be given the opportunity to express our opinion on the Bill of Rights in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australian sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce divisions in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed; only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum.'' And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain concerned citizens of Australia: Respectfully showeth that the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 5. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right of Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Ocean. by Mr Kent. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petitioners of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the humble petitioners respectfully believe that the representatives in Australia of the African National Congress and the South West Africa Peoples Organisation should not have to suffer unending financial problems related to the cost of rent, food and clothing, and the maintenance of two small offices run on the most austere basis. Your Petitioners therefore pray and urge the provision of: 1. Official recognition of A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. as the legitimate representatives of the people of South Africa and Namibia. 2. Financial support to the offices and representatives of the African National Congress and the South West Africa Peoples Organisation to promote the anti-Apartheid cause. 3. Additional financial support for the official representatives of the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. to assist the humanitarian needs of Namibian and South African refugees who are victims of Apartheid. 4. Scholarships for South African and Namibian refugees. These to be provided through the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. education departments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that the lack of a Medicare Office in Wyong is seriously inconveniencing the residents of Wyong Shire. Your petitioners therefore request that a Medicare Office is established in Wyong as soon as possible. by Mr Lee. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McGauran. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; and, to the Australian Government. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that a comprehensive ban on all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time would be a vital first step towards: inhibiting the addition of more and more sophisticated and destabilising nuclear weapons to the worlds arsenals; arresting the extension of the arms race to outer space; upholding the provisions of existing treaties and agreements. Your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Australian Government-(a) Take new initiatives to encourage all member states of the United Nations-especially the governments of nuclear weapon states-to conclude at an early stage a treaty banning all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time, (b) Call on all nuclear weapon states to declare an immediate moratorium on all nuclear weapon tests pending conclusion of a CTB. 2. All Federal members of Parliament and Senators make strong representations to the Australian Government to act towards these goals. And your petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Maher. To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully sheweth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the Federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your Petitioners humbly pray that: The Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and the members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of the Division of Cowper respectfully sheweth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the Federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your Petitioners humbly pray that: The Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the President and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's proposed cutbacks in funding for the `First Home Owners Scheme', the House of Representatives undertake to oppose such a move, in regard to its effect on young married couples in the community. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should undertake measures to restore the level of payments previously available under the Scheme. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that Australia's important horticultural industry is being severely disadvantaged by unnecessarily rising production costs. Many Federal and State Government regulations, excessive taxes and charges are damaging the ability of horticultural growers to maintain supplies of food and plant products to Australian families at a realistic cost. Widespread unemployment will result if horticultural producers are further depressed. The undersigned humbly petition the Parliaments of Australia, its States and Territories, to take all measures within their powers to reduce the burden of imposed costs and regulation, allowing Australian horticultural growers to develop production potential so the nation, as a whole, can share the benefits of the resulting growth and prosperity. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's proposal to bring about a reduction in the amount payable under the present Family Allowance Scheme, that the House of Representatives assembled oppose such a move, on the evidence of its impact upon the family unit. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek to restore payments to the former level. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the koala declared an endangered species and given the proper protection of the Commonwealth. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House declare that the koala may not be exported from this country and that urgent re-vegetation of their habitats be carried out. Your petitioners also humbly pray that Commonwealth Government funds will be made available for research into the disease Chlamydia Psittaci which is killing the koala. And your petitioners, and in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of Australian residents shows that we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australia Card'' or any form of compulsory identity cards. We believe that the introduction of Identity cards will erode civil liberties; will create an increased risk of invasion of privacy; and will not result in any significant increase in Government revenue. We call on the Parliament to immediately reject any proposals for the introduction of compulsory Identity cards. by Mr Staples. To the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens humbly pray that your Honourable House will take notice: 1. That they call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in `Funding Policies of Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State Aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. That they call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. That they call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election policies for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that: In this International Year of Peace, 1986, the world needs a Nuclear Test Moratorium by the United States, the Soviet Union, France and other nuclear-testing powers. That such a moratorium would create a favourable climate and basis for the negotiation of a Comprehensive Nuclear Ban Treaty. That such a Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would- be the first vital step to nuclear disarmament impede the development of new nuclear weapons decrease the reliance upon an unstable nuclear strategy inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to 1. Use its influence with the United States Government to encourage it to join the moratorium on nuclear testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the Nuclear Test Moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage non-nuclear nations to demand the establishment of a Nuclear Test Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. by Mr Staples. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. by Mr Free,Mr Grace,Mr Gorman and Mr Price. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Hicks. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Page electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system of Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Forces, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully request that: The worlds resources be redirected to the relief of human suffering, starvation, poverty and disease. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Stop spending taxpayers money on self promotion through high cost high profile but superficial policy on nuclear disarmament and make a genuine bi-partisan commitment to positive and practical policies designed to achieve progressive world-wide nuclear disarmament. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's refusal to pass onto motorists, farmers and small businessmen, and the community as a whole, the full effect of the drop in world oil prices will decrease Australia's competitiveness as a trading nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Act immediately to adhere to the oil world parity pricing policy, and give the full flow-on of the drop in world oil prices to the Australian public and the business sector. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's productivity- superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain electors of Dawson shows that the proposed Bill of Rights- overlooks basic rights concerning union membership, education, and private property, is a basis for massive intrusion into State responsibilities, establishes a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission with powers similar to a Court but without accepted legal procedures and protections for the accused, and provides no avenue of appeal against decisions of the HR&EOC. The petition further shows that fundamental protection of human rights is already to be found in the Courts, in tolerance, in fair play, belief in democratic institutions, and in support for rule of law. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament will not allow the Australian Bill of Rights Bill to pass into law. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Mallee electorate respectfully showeth: That all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions. That the proposed Capital Gains Tax is an unwarranted burden on the rural sector, which will severely affect its long term viability. That the delay by the Government in introducing the legislation into Parliament is causing confusion and hindering farmers in the organisation of their affairs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government introduces the Capital Gains Tax legislation without delay and that the Australian Democrats join with the Opposition to defeat the proposed legislation. by Mr Peter Fisher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Somerset Dam in the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That we object to the hasty and ill conceived relocation of the public telephone facility at Somerset Dam on the grounds that- (a) it does not meet the needs of the area; (b) it does not have the support of the local Community; (c) it is open to vandalism; (d) it is poorly lit. Your petitioners therefore request that: A further public telephone service be made available at the previous location or if this is not possible that the present public telephone service be resited at its previous location. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Shire of Caboolture situated in the Federal Division of Fisher, Queensland respectfully showeth: That the present Commonwealth funding for day care facilities for child care in the Shire of Caboolture is totally inadequate to meet the growing demands of the district which is one of the fastest growing areas in Queensland and Australia. That the funding for Aboriginal and migrant child care facilities is disproportionately high in comparison to growth areas such as Caboolture which are seriously disadvantaged under present Federal Government funding guidelines. That there is an apparent excessive number of places for child care funding in Canberra and the Australian Capital Territory, while there is a lack of these places in Caboolture, Queensland and other areas remote from the Capital. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That rapid growth areas such as the Shire of Caboolture be given special consideration in the allocation of funding. 2. That such funding be made available at similar levels to that provided to migrant and Aboriginal communities. 3. That funding in Canberra and the Australian Capital Territory be reduced to a level appropriate to reasonable requirements and that the funds be reallocated to localities of greater need. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the current policy pursued by the Hawke Government is causing an intolerable increase in home loan interest rates beyond the capacity of families to pay. That consequently this policy is causing grave hardship throughout Australia and is contributing to social problems and the breakup of the family unit. That unless the Government act urgently the Australian dream of home ownership is fast becoming shattered for many of our citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Government make home loan interest rates tax deductible therefore alleviating the present crippling burden of current high interest rates on home owners and home buyers. Any your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the flag has a been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government had no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e., set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia, And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth that: The total disallowance by the Hawke Labor Government of tax deductibility for entertainment and hospitality expenses will unfairly penalise Australian business and cost thousands of jobs for young and unskilled people. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Abandon its total ban on entertainment expenses and allow tax deductibility for legitimate and necessary expenses. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. Petitions received. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I have received advice from the Government Whip that he has nominated Mr Maher to be a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in place of Mr Price. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —I move: That the House, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 2.15 p.m. or such later time as Madam Speaker shall take the Chair. This will facilitate the function that the Parliament will put on in honour of the visit of the Prime Minister of Singapore. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: Public concern about the Government's haphazard, mismanaged and superficial approach to combating organised crime. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(3.02) —On 6 April this year we saw the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on television, at which time he was speaking about the drug offensive. In his speech he said this: For the first time we now have a National Crime Authority able to investigate matters covered by both Commonwealth and State laws. The Federal Government has made investigations of drug trafficking the No. 1 priority of the Australian Federal Police, and $17m has already been committed for increased computer capacity and additional staff. We have heard the term `No. 1 priority' or `Priority One' before. The last time we heard it was in relation to the youth of this country who were locked out of work by the politics and policies of this Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. However, the Prime Minister's statement was just another example of the politics of illusion which this Government persists in pursuing in the case of organised crime. The reality of the situation became evident last Friday in a London court, in relation to a man called Cornwell, who is sought by the Australian Government on 10 charges under section 233b of the Customs Act relating to conspiracy to import commercial quantities of heroin, cocaine, cannabis and cannabis resin, conspiracy to supply Indian hemp, and eight or nine passport offences. There had been another case before his case, that is, the Trimbole case. We recall Trimbole's case. Leaving aside the amusing and, shall we say, beguiling comments that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) makes about the case, it was an example of what can happen when we have to go overseas to get fugitives and bring them back to Australia. The lessons from that case were clear: Get advice at the highest level. Do not simply rely on something that comes out from the local Director of Public Prosecutions, but get it checked at the highest level by the leader of the local Bar and by a leader of one's own Bar, because where we will find the best people is out there at the Bar. Be kept advised and take a close interest in what is going on. Lock the case up as tightly as a bank vault and take nothing for granted. In a foreign country one is involved with a foreign court. It cannot be controlled or influenced. One may have but one chance and so one must get it right the first time. When a magistrate rejects the tender of transcripts of tapes on the basis that they are not the best evidence, as patently they were not, it is a little difficult to say: `Will you give me a few minutes, hours, days or weeks to enable me to get some witnesses out from Australia to prove these matters?' That is the problem. We have to look at it from the point of view of taking the most careful approach to lock up the case. Mr Cornwell is a big fish. He has been sought by the criminal law authorities for about eight years. Apprehension overseas of fugitives is always difficult and follows painstaking police work and a lot of luck. On this occasion we sent a legal team to London, presumably at great cost. But what happened? The fullest report that I have read is to be found in the Age of today, which states that the London magistrate who heard the case ruled that transcripts of alleged conversations involving Cornwall in Sydney and monitored by the National Crime Authority were inadmissible evidence in extradition hearings. The magistrate is quoted as saying: I really do wonder why the Australian authorities have not sent a copy of the tape. Is not that a perfectly sensible observation? If one is trying to establish a prima facie case against a man in an overseas court should not one take the best evidence with one because one may not get another chance? If one does get another chance, one gets it because one is lucky. The Attorney-General is at the table. I am glad that he is here, because I asked him some questions earlier and I invite him to expand on his answers to those questions. I referred him to the Age and to a comment in the Age about the case which stated: International extradition law prohibits prosecutions of charges other than those for which the extradition has been ordered. I ask this question: Is it to be the case that, if no fresh application can be made or if there is an appeal and it is unsuccessful, the English authorities will hand Cornwell over for trial on only the passport charges but not on the drug charges? If that is the case, it illustrates the dimensions of the bungle and of the basic error that was made here. It seems that we rely on extradition by luck, by hazard and by chance under a Government which seems not to understand the real work of war against crime. Let us look at symbolism. Much has been said about the Government's intentions about organised crime and how it is fighting organised crime. We have heard the Prime Minister, the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) and the Attorney-General on the subject. We have had the great Press kit issued by this Government. No one decries the need for education to have a role in the fight against crime, and in particular in the fight against drugs. Nobody would deny that that is useful. Nobody would deny that members of the community, in particular the young, need to be told. What do we have? We have a huge Press kit that in cost of dollars would be positively astonishing. If we think of the benefits that could have been gained in terms of computers, specialised staff, more resources and better prospects of arrests and convictions if the exercise had been somewhat less weighty, somewhat less public relations oriented and more serious, we have lost a great deal. People should understand what they are paying for when they see the Press kit that will come to them. It comes one year after the drug summit. It may be well intentioned, but for the most part it is banal, pious and empty-a compilation of cliches laced with the occasional untruth and the occasional unintentional humour. The document entitled The Drug Offensive is to go out to all Australian families. What does it state? I give honourable members one quote from it: There are also much tougher penalities for drug traffickers, which include longer prison terms and confiscation of assets. In other words, drug dealers now stand to lose everything. What is wrong with that? It would be very good if they did lose everything. The only thing that is wrong with it is that it is not true. Legislation for the confiscation of all assets has yet to be passed. It has not even been contemplated by this Government. The legislation which is on the books goes back to 1977 and to the previous Government. This Government is still looking at comprehensive legislation relating to the confiscation of assets which result from criminal activities. It certainly has never contemplated confiscating all the assets-as the Government states in The Drug Offensive-of those who engage in the drug trade. Mr N.A. Brown —It is thinking about it. Mr SPENDER —The Government is thinking about it. Let me take another gem that appears in this document. Near the back page is a photograph of somebody who has been caught. The document states: One day you're going to get caught. Caught by whom? Listen to this: While the drug offensive is good news to most Australians, it is bad news to drug traffickers. Tell some of the people who operate in this country why they should be concerned about the drug offensive. Does anybody seriously think that criminals will read this and say to themselves: `Gosh! One day I'm going to be caught. I had better straighten myself out'? In the same warning to criminals The Drug Offensive states about the power to intercept: This power is to be extended to police authorities in the States. When? The document continues: Sending illicit drugs through the mail is to be made an offence and the Australian Federal Police will be given power to inspect suspected mail. When will that take place? For a long time we have been talking about it and there have been recommendations about extending to State police authorities the power to intercept, and yet we have still to come to grips with the legislation. When will we have it? That, of course, is the politics of illusion. State it, say that it will happen, and one assumes it is there. Pass on to the next television spectacular. What are some of the failures? Take some of the proposals that have been put to this Government and to past governments. Of course past governments have to bear a burden of responsibility, but the Labor Government has been in power for over three years and it is in the last three years that the dimensions of the drug problem have emerged with such astonishing and appalling clarity. Just take some of the recommendations that have been made, for example, by Mr Justice Williams back in 1979 for a uniform drug trafficking code under which State law enforcement authorities would have enlarged powers to deal with the massive distribution organisation which exists, with emphasis on the criminal organisers rather than the users and minor operators. What about some action there? Mr Justice Moffitt-he is now Mr Moffitt, QC-formerly of the Court of Appeal, who himself ran an inquiry into organised crime, speaks of this recommendation in his book A Quarter to Midnight, which should be required reading for all those who are concerned about the drug offensive and the drug war this country is presently facing. What about State police interceptions? Moffitt points out in his book that we are still waiting for them. What about provisions for the confiscation of assets? That is still under consideration and has been under consideration ever since Mr Costigan presented his final report. It has been under consideration for over a year. How many years does the Government want? Is that not something about which one makes up one's mind quickly, as a matter of principle? Yes, the confiscation of assets that are in any way related to the drug trade in particular or to any other aspect of organised crime is justified, should take place and should be treated as a national priority. If we are dealing with something which is said to be an offensive for which $100m has been committed by the State governments and the Federal Government, yet the Government cannot come to grips with the hard work of legislation to deal with the people who are breaking the youth of this country, what are we about-reality or illusion? This Government is most certainly about illusion. What about the National Crime Authority? We still have problems there. We all know there are problems. There is the absence of autonomy to investigate as it sees fit; there is the absence of autonomy to use the power of compulsory process. Should not that be available? Of course it should. There is the need to eliminate what Mr Moffitt described as the capacity for entrenched political warfare in the way in which the Authority is set up. The dimensions of the drug problem were referred by Mr Justice Williams as long ago as 1979, when he picked up an estimate, which he treated with some caution, of the street value of the price paid by heroin users alone. It was put between $1 billion and $1,600m. He considered that that might be a somewhat high estimate. Does anybody doubt that now it is very much higher? We are still waiting any real action on the drugs offensive. It is one year after the drug summit. In a major case the Government has fallen on its face. No excuse is to be found in saying: `We got advice'. The answer is that the Government should have gone to London prepared for any eventuality. If one is going 20,000 kilometres, one should have the wit to understand that if anything goes wrong one ought to have the best evidence available as one cannot turn around and whistle it up from Australia. However, that was not done, as we would expect, under this Government. We are talking about fighting the war against drugs. Let us admit that the war against drug pushers and organised crime has been substantially lost. What we are looking at is the next war and whether we can win it. The following question was put by a writer on Mr Athol Moffitt's book: . . . whether the grip of organised crime in society is now unshakeable by any processes available to a democratic community. That is the question we face. That is the question which needs to be answered by denial of heroin, by denial of drugs, by laws, by police process, by the power in the National Crime Authority. That is the question which simply has not been addressed by this Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(3.17) —In answer to the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), let me make the point that he might have spent more time on the issues he obviously had in mind when he spoke about mismanagement. Most of his remarks were about a recent publication sent to every household in Australia warning people about the danger of drug addiction and the problems related to it. Certainly that matter is very serious but basically it was encompassed by the States, and particularly by our Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), when they talked about what arose from the drug summit. However, in fairness to the honourable gentleman, he raised the fact that even previous governments were guilty of neglecting their responsibility in the matter. That is the position. Certainly our society is bedevilled by an increase in organised crime, but that is not to say that we have been merely waiting to initiate some legislation. The honourable gentleman gives scant recognition to the work done by the National Crime Authority, which we created, and which operates in conjunction with the State governments. In other words, the respective State Ministers participate in the Authority because not only is crime related to Federal matters in the main, it can also well be related to State responsibilities. The National Crime Authority has already laid 126 charges, the majority of which deal with drug offences. Let me put that on record. The last meeting of Ministers and police commissioners representing the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory commended the achievements of the Authority. It should not be said, just because recent publicity has been given to what happened in the United Kingdom last week, that all has failed. That is the nub of the question. The honourable gentleman went on to say that Cornwell was a bad boy eight years ago. I am sure that he was. But eight years ago it was not really our responsibility. I am not sheeting home responsibility to anybody else. It shows the cleverness of the modern organised criminal that he can remain undetected for a long period. In fairness, in the present situation, we certainly had evidence on Cornwell. That is the position. As the honourable gentleman knows, the United Kingdom is one of the most difficult countries from which to get extradition because it places heavy emphasis on proving virtually a prima facie case. Other countries do not do that. It is difficult. It would not be the first time, I am advised, that we have failed in trying to get extradition from the United Kingdom. There was a previous failure in 1979. I would not expect the honourable gentleman to advert to that but, obviously, it happened. I am concerned by a report that the magistrate may have been a lay magistrate taking advice from an experienced person or clerk of the court as to what he should do in the matter. These are the facts in the Cornwell situation. It is appropriate that they be placed on record. Extradition was sought on 19 counts, as the honourable gentleman said, 12 of which were related to narcotics dealings or matters of that nature. There was a question of what sort of evidence would be sent. There was discussion with the United Kingdom authorities on the type of evidence that might be required. Legal people in the National Crime Authority had discussions with the United Kingdom Director of Public Prosecutions on the nature of the evidence required, because a substantial part of the evidence was on tape. The National Crime Authority discussed its concerns about sending the tapes to the United Kingdom because they could easily be at risk; they might be wiped out or otherwise destroyed by airport security, or they might be lost. The risks would be present not only while the tapes were being sent to London but also while they were being returned. The views of the United Kingdom authorities were sought on this matter. They advised that it would not be necessary to have the tapes in the United Kingdom to support the extradition proceedings. On the basis of this advice the National Crime Authority, which prepared the documents in support of the extradition request, did not provide the tapes but-I emphasise this-it provided a transcript of the tapes that was certified by Mr Briese, the stipendiary magistrate who took the evidence here. Mr Briese certified that the transcript was accurate. It was tendered. It is disappointing but perhaps amusing in a fashion to know that, despite the fact that the magistrate decided that he might consider an adjournment, he came back after lunch and said that as he was going on leave shortly he would not grant the adjournment. That is unusual. I think that even the honourable gentleman would say that. Mr Spender —Not in the magistrates court. That is one of the problems you should be aware of. I started there. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, and look where the honourable member finished. The point is that the honourable gentleman is concerned, perhaps because it is said in the Age-and it is a rational approach-that we might not be able to start again. I am advised that we can start again and we propose to do so. The difficulty is how to preserve our evidence-the tapes. We will have to overcome the problem because we want Cornwell here. As the honourable gentleman says, there may be strong arguments that we cannot deal with him on narcotics offences if he is extradited on passport offences. I assure the honourable member that we will overcome that problem. The honourable member will appreciate the difficulty. One would have thought that if a stipendiary magistrate said that the transcript was a transcript of the tapes it would have been admitted as evidence. It was not. I acknowledge that that is the position. But all is not lost. We will leave no stone unturned to guarantee that Cornwell and his ilk are returned to Australia whenever we locate them. The Trimbole case was mentioned. I interjected that he was a top class criminal who was able to get out of the country on a forged passport as soon as there was to be an inquiry, particularly relating to the Donald Mackay murder. That was a difficult problem. The issue was that when he was located in Ireland we had no extradition treaty with Ireland. Why did we not have one? The Irish were prepared to have it back in the 1970s. There is no point in casting aspersions at a particular person, but the matter was filed away in 1977 in a drawer marked `N.A.'-no action required. Mr Spender —But it did not affect the final outcome. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It did not, but I make the point-the honourable member might like to think about it-that we had to have a special arrangement because we did not have a treaty. Therefore, there was a delay. I leave it at that. Honourable members can see the difficulty. I am pleased to say that I have been to Ireland since then and to a number of other countries to sign treaties. We have signed quite a number. There are many more to come. I will be a rival to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) if I have to complete all the treaties, because of the number of countries with which we do not have extradition treaties. That is the point. We have been without these treaties for a long time, but we will get them. Mr Justice Williams emphasised the problem in 1979. He advocated uniform drug legislation but we did not have such legislation in 1983 when we came to office. This legislation has been circularised to all the States and some of them have now adopted models. We will be able to introduce very effective legislation here very soon because the States have had ample time to consider the position. Again we have distributed a Bill on the forfeiture of assets, and some States have already adopted that. We will be able to introduce very effective legislation-some would say legislation of world class-in that regard. Legislation on telephone interception was sent to the States for their approval. They have not all replied but as soon as they do we will be introducing such legislation. All those areas have involved discussions with the States, particularly through meetings of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, concerning what the States regard as being suitable uniformity in this field. I welcome the co-operation of the States. What Williams, Moffitt and others were saying back in the 1970s was needed-when the honourable gentleman's Government was in power-is now recognised. A quarter to midnight was not a quarter to midnight in 1983 or 1984; it was a quarter to midnight prior to that, in the time of the Premier of New South Wales who held a different political philosophy from ours. The honourable gentleman asks what has happened about State police investigations and interceptions. It is a matter of record that the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking will be reporting on that matter very soon. However, the interception in question was in the 1970s, and at that time the Federal Police were aware of the interception. In fact, rather amusingly, they had copies of the tapes, which were handed back to the New South Wales police authorities, an informant having been paid some $200 for those tapes. So honourable members should not assume that the then Government knew nothing about those matters. All that information was in its possession back in the 1970s. What did the then Government do about it? The honourable gentleman did not then have an exalted position in the Ministry, but what was done about extradition treaties and about establishing an effective mechanism in Australia to combat crime? The real credit for action having been taken must go to Costigan, who identified the extraordinary situation that had developed. Costigan happened to be of the greatest benefit by accident. His inquiry was created by the Fraser Government to try to skittle the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, because it was a trade union, but instead it brought down the Liberal Government. It brought it down because we saw from Costigan's colourful language and the McCabe-Lafranchi situation that organised crime had been identified as being involved in tax evasion, the criminal element was there, but there were no prosecutions at all. There were massive reductions in revenue collected as a result of tax evasion. His recommendations at least identified the problem. Mr N.A. Brown —You have pigeonholed them. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, we have not pigeonholed them. The National Crime Authority has been established. It is investigating 126 charges and a number of others are being developed. Costigan started to talk about tax and financial records. We are meeting a little resistance from the banks and others, who ask why they should be obliged to produce records. We think that they should be, as is the case in the United States, in regard to monetary transactions called the laundering of money. It is important that we educate the banks to have a responsibility in this area. It is no good a bank manager opening nine different accounts for the one person using different names and saying that everything will be all right. Their responsibility should be to help us investigate the money trail, which is what Costigan was about. It is no good the honourable gentleman saying that the problem is that we have sent some innocuous publication out to the people that says to be careful about drugs. We are much more up front than that at this stage in terms of legislation, but this legislation has involved discussing matters with the States. We are in a warfare situation and therefore we ought to have some equipment. When we came to office we had no means of bringing people back from other countries. We have negotiated new forms of treaty on the basis that we do not have to go to strict proof of the evidence. We can talk about the question of the offence having been identified. That is a great breakthrough. That cannot be done with the British at the moment, but I am happy to say that because of efforts being made here in Australia with the British and other Commonwealth countries, it will be at the top of the agenda in the forthcoming Commonwealth Law Officers conference in Zimbabwe. We hope that the British will agree to a modern form of treaty where we do not have this technical difficulty we have experienced in the past. I point out that we have undertaken more treaties in the last 15 months than has any Australian government in the last 15 years, and honourable members opposite were in office most of that time. It was my office that established the extradition task force. In the 35 years from 1950 to 1985 only five extradition treaties were put in place. On the matter of getting these crooks back, we will be able to do a lot more effective work now because we will have support here, I hope very soon, from the point of view of the banks being able to co-operate on monetary transactions. They will be able to report on the laundering of money and we will be able to follow that money and it will be forfeited on a conviction. Perhaps we can provide that if assets are identified, the onus of proof will be on the person concerned to show whether the asset was legally acquired. Mr N.A. Brown —But you lost Mr Trimbole. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We lost Mr Trimbole because the previous Government let him go, that is the point, and you let him go on a false passport. Once the inquiry into the Mackay position was established here, he immediately got a passport and left this country-in 1982, I regret to say. The honourable gentleman who is interjecting will have a particular interest in 1982 as he then assisted the Attorney-General. I thank the honourable gentleman for raising the matter, but I wish he had a better case than the one he put up. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(3.32) —It is worth pointing out to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) that we did not lose the Trimbole case. He was in government, he was the Attorney-General, and he must bear the responsibility for the fiasco that was created in that Trimbole extradition hearing in Ireland. The Federal Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mr William Webster, who visited Australia in January this year, said that the limitations on powers of police in Australia made Australia the weak link in international efforts to fight organised crime. The reason that gentleman can go around saying things like that is that we have not kept up to date with the sorts of means and methods that are required to fight, as the Attorney-General has accurately pointed out, these very clever people in organised crime. The Attorney-General rightly gave a great deal of credit to Costigan and the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. He must also give great credit to the people who set up in the inquiry. That, of course, was the Liberal-National Party Government under Mr Fraser. If the Attorney-General is to give credit to Costigan, he must take criticism for the Labor Government's attempts to emasculate the Costigan Royal Commission, which eventually resulted in that Commission becoming impotent and then dead. The question that has to be asked and is continually asked in the community is: What on earth has happened to that inquiry? Where are the results? Where is the performance we are looking for from the Government of the day? That is the important question, and we are not getting an answer to it. This matter of public importance relates to the public's concern about the Government's inability to combat organised crime. I say that the public is not concerned-it is damned horrified at the Government's inability to fight organised crime. People throughout Australia are frightened in their homes today, they are frightened every day of the week because of the way in which crime, particularly organised crime, is increasing daily in this country. Organised crime, according to the various commissions of inquiry in the last few years, is costing this nation about $10 billion a year. Ten billion dollars a year is far more than the Federal Government's deficit. If we put half the effort that we put into fighting the Federal Government's deficit into the fight against organised crime, we would have a much better result. We would see much less crime in the streets, much less concern in the home. The drug trade is costing this country about $2 billion. That is more than the Tasmanian Government's total Budget-in fact, it is damned near twice as much as that Budget. The issue of drugs and organised crime is the number one concern in our society today. That is borne out by the public opinion polls in recent days. What is the Government doing about it? That is a good question. Last weekend a 24-page glossy booklet was distributed to every home in Australia. It was issued as a result of the Prime Minister's speech launching the drug offensive. In launching the offensive, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said: In 1984 more than 20,000 Australians died as a result of drug abuse. He went on: For that reason this book is being delivered to every household in Australia. It will tell you all you need to know about the drug offensive-what we are doing for the victims, what we are doing to the traffickers. What are we doing to the traffickers? We saw the answer to that last Friday in London. We are letting them get away by bungled attempts to extradite them. The performance is not good enough. If the Prime Minister wants to make statements like that to the nation, he must be prepared to back them up with actions-and actions are not coming forth from the words we are hearing. At the same time one has to ask oneself what is the cost to the community of organised crime, particularly drugs. The Prime Minister said it is a cost that both economically and socially this society, this nation, cannot tolerate. I ask again: What is the Government doing about it? The Prime Minister announced a $100m drug offensive. About two-thirds of that amount of money will be consumed in administration and publicity-a lot of it self-promotion, publicity for the Labor Party. About one-third-a fraction of that money-will trickle down to street level, where the drugs war is being fought. That is the sort of campaign we see coming from the Prime Minister and this Government. The Prime Minister announced that $17m will be given to the Australian Federal Police to install a new computer. This must be the most announced and re-announced $17m that has ever been dragged through this Parliament. For goodness sake, last year after the Drug Summit the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) announced the $17m. The same $17m was announced in the Budget. It was announced between the Budget and the Prime Minister's speech the other day. It has been announced and re-announced half a dozen times. Is this the sort of innovative program we can expect to see from the Government for attacking the drug organised crime problem? I do not think it is good enough. A sum of $17m to fight the number one concern in the community as an innovative program is not the sort of work we want to see from the Government. I would not be surprised if the Government were spending across Australia more money on prickly pear eradication than on an innovative program to fight the drugs problem and organised crime. I spoke earlier of the Australian Federal Police. Let us look at what the Government is doing to its budget. Its budget is to do with fighting the number one issue, the drugs problem, and also crime right across the country. In 1983-84 the Government gave the AFP an appropriation of $128m. What happened in the next year, in 1984-85? The police got only $117m, a net loss of $11m. Is that the way to fight organised crime-by restricting the resources of the bodies that are supposed to be fighting our number one concern? The Government has set up a Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. It has a budget of $1.7m. I dare say that this Government is spending more money on sponsoring peace marches around the country than it is on organising the Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. That same body after 45 submissions to the Government finally got itself a computer-only to find that it was not given sufficient funding to put public servants in front of the computer to operate it. To be fair, I must say that after a great deal of lobbying, it finally got the staff, but that shows the people of Australia how half-hearted is this Government's attempt to implement measures to try to overcome this problem. The Attorney-General spoke of the establishment of the National Crime Authority. It is worth pointing out that the National Crime Authority was born out of legislation of the latter days of the Fraser-Anthony Government. Of course, unfortunately that was never proclaimed. What did the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) do with it? He played around with it for a while and, instead of having a National Crimes Commission with powers similar to that of a royal commission with an independence that made it devoid of all political conflict, he set up the National Crime Authority, which does not have the sorts of powers that are necessary to do the work that it needs to do. It is not fully independent and it is administered by a Commonwealth and State committee of Attorneys-General and police Ministers, who have the ability to veto investigations of the National Crime Authority in their own States. That is the sort of action that we got from the National Crime Authority, which was a half-baked attempt to match up to Mr Fraser's National Crimes Commission. This Cornwell affair is a disaster for Australia. It is a disaster for every decent, honest Australian. Mr Cornwell is a kingpin, if I may put it that way, in the drugs business of Australia. He is a major man in this $2,000m worth of trade a year. I am afraid that, unless we do better at the job of getting these people behind iron bars, we are not going to be able to tackle our number one concern. The drugs business is killing more people every year in Australia than we lost in Vietnam. I think that, whilst we have the National Crime Authority and the Australian Federal Police, they are struggling to do the best that they can, and we really do need to do more. Unless we are prepared to do more, we will be hearing more of what we heard from Major-General Ronald Grey, who is the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police. We could be hearing these words around the country: `In Australia we face a bigger threat from within than from without'. There are 20,000 heroin addicts in this country today, that is, 20,000 criminals in this country today, because it costs $1,000 per week to sustain the average heroin addiction. Every one of those people is a potential criminal today. Unless we tackle this problem more efficiently than we are with the present glossy brochures and $100m, two-thirds of which is to be spent on administration and publicity, this Government will be seen for what it is, namely, people hiding behind hollow words and too weak-kneed to tackle our nation's number one concern in an effective manner. The DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(3.42) —I suppose there is nothing which differentiates the Government and the Opposition more than the remarks from the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) when on the one hand he criticises this Government for spending $100m on a drug offensive and then says it is not enough. Tomorrow he will stand up and criticise this Government for not cutting its expenditure program. These are the sorts of strange comments that we get from the Opposition on all matters in this House. Members of the Opposition criticise the most innovative program this country has seen, the drug offensive, but they also criticise this Government for not cutting its expenditure program. They want to be able to have their cake and eat it too and they are exposed for the shams that they really are. I suppose that, if I were in a court of law and I really analysed the case put forward by the Opposition, I would stand up and say: `There is no case to answer; they have failed to establish their case-and they have failed miserably'. I understood that the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) was intending to show that we had failed in our approach to organised crime in this country. Of course, he did not really get around to talking about what was being done to tackle organised crime in this country. While the honourable member for North Sydney was criticising the Government for its expenditure of $100m on the drug offensive program, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) was chatting away and making his unrecorded contribution to this debate. I am always amazed when I see in this House a barrister who specialises in industrial law and another barrister who specialises in commercial law standing up and talking about crime. It is something far removed from their practical experience in their lives. They have sat in the holy ivory towers of Phillip Street and the Sir Owen Dixon Chambers in William Street. They have never gone down to the streets where the police have to operate, where barristers and solicitors appear in the magistrates court and see daily the grime and filth which are part and parcel of crime in this country. These two gentlemen have not been down there. I am always amazed when they stand in this House and want to talk about crime. Mr N.A. Brown —Better than tax avoidance work. Mr CLEELAND —Of course, the honourable member for Menzies knows all about tax avoidance. He and and the Bar in William Street were responsible, very much responsible for the tax avoidance industry. While the barristers waxed rich on the advice that they published around the countryside, the Bar got very rich on tax avoidance. I wonder how many barristers in this place made a fortune by telling people how to rip off the taxation system in this country. There is no pride in the Australian Bar for its role in the tax avoidance industry; that is for sure. Let us return to the subject of crime, because it is interesting. Mr Costigan and his royal commission have been mentioned time and time again. I always smile a lot when the Opposition in this place talks about Mr Costigan and the royal commission because honourable members know that the Opposition was dragged literally screaming down the path to organised crime when Mr Costigan was appointed to knock off the trade union movement. Members opposite hoped to use the royal commission to show what a rotten lot the union system was, but Mr Costigan was not satisfied; he dragged them down the path until the Australian public was shown, as a result of the Opposition's own incompetence, what organised crime was really about in this country. What was organised crime about and what did Mr Costigan find out? Of course, he found that under the Liberal-National Party Government the tax system had been ripped asunder, which had not much to do with crime in the sense that we once understood it but, rather, white collar crime. It was the friends of the Liberal Party of Australia who were rorting the system. Members of the coalition Government were then dragged screaming down the path towards recognising the simple fact that crime has broader aspects. It is not just drugs; organised crime involves a whole spectrum of people who would, by stealth, abuse the system of our country to benefit them-selves at the expense of others, so on that one point alone members of the Opposition are exposed as a sham. Their words are hollow and false, which they always have been and always will be. The honourable member for North Sydney talked about the best evidence. He suggested that as a Government we should be criticised because the National Crime Authority, by not sending original tapes to Great Britain, did not send the best evidence and that the Cornwell case faltered because of the lack of the best evidence. Of course, no one in this House at this stage has had the benefit of receiving detailed advice from our advisers in Great Britain an what exactly went wrong. In fact, I suggest that the only evidence at present in the possession of any person in this House who has commented on the matter is the newspaper report in the Age. The honourable member for North Sydney relied on this newspaper report as his best evidence. Here we have an interesting situation. On the one hand, the honourable member for North Sydney criticised this Government by saying that we did not send off the tapes, which were the best evidence; but on the other hand he based his whole criticism on an Age newspaper report as if to suggest it was the best evidence. If that is the best evidence that the honourable member for North Sydney can produce to criticise this Government, I suggest that he wait until a serious report is available, at which stage we can all look at the details and find out what the facts are and then maybe have a constructive debate. Of course, constructive debates are rather rare in this place; they are most unusual. We do not often get a chance to debate anything in a serious fashion because the Opposition usually jumps in too quickly and tries to use this place for political purposes. The attack on this Government in relation to the drug offensive has annoyed me very much. I pointed out that the honourable member for North Sydney practised as a commercial lawyer and that the honourable member for Menzies, who was butting in all the time, was an industrial lawyer. I am not quite sure what the honourable member for Gilmore was, but I suggest that he has had little experience of the hard facts of the drug scene on the streets where it really happens. Of course, the drug offensive involves getting to the heart of the whole drug problem in this country. If there are no users there are no pushers. If there is no market there is no drug to sell. The whole drug scene starts from the fact that, for a variety of social reasons, a lot of people within our society commence using drugs; not just heroin, cocaine or marihuana but also alcohol and cigarettes. This Government sees the whole drug scene, in the broad spectrum, as a bad thing and it is tackling the problem. In fact, as the material on the drug offensive points out, heroin is the least of the problems of all the drugs in use in this country. The Opposition failed to mention that fact. It tended to try to score political points by looking at only one aspect of the whole drug offensive program. The tragedy of Australian society is that there are those people who, for a variety of social reasons, find themselves starting to use drugs, such as alcohol, cigarettes and marihuana, which eventually lead them into the harder drug scene where drugs such as heroin, cocaine, mandrax, serepax and the rest of the broad spectum of drugs which are so readily available find their way into their pockets and they are tempted to experiment with them. The problem we face in this country is not so much the pushers; we have to find out how to solve the problem at the bottom, at the grass roots level, at the family level, because all these young kids have families and they are the products of families. I find it very sad when we talk about the drug offensive that we have had nothing but criticism from the Press and the media. Everyone has failed to realise that we have to get to the families, we have to talk to the parents, we have to educate parents and we have to educate the young people concerned. We have to start at the grass roots level. I am disappointed that this debate, which was supposed to be about the Government's failure to tackle organised crime, has degenerated into a criticism of what I believe to be a very important and fundamental approach to solving the drug problem in Australia. Let us have a look at what this Government has done. It established the National Crime Authority and it has had a great deal of success. I think it is a mistake to talk about the National Crime Authority as being a failure. It has a lot of runs on the board already. It is not as if the National Crime Authority has not been successful. To date it has been responsible for laying 126 charges, and they are serious charges. We have only to read the newspapers today to find out that, at the importation level in Australia, we are catching some of the biggest hauls of drugs that this country has seen. The largest hauls are now being caught. The crime tsars now know that, without question, it is becoming more difficult to import drugs into this country. Let us in this Parliament just be honest for a change. Let us recognise that we cannot stop and we will never stop the importation of hard drugs. We would be kidding ourselves and hiding from the facts if we believe that we could stop the importation of hard drugs. With our coastline and the billions of dollars of profit that are available, drugs will come in. It is a mistake for honourable members opposite to say that there is a simple solution, and to come into the chamber and criticise the Government and say: `You have done nothing'. The fact of the matter is that, with the scores on the board today, this Government has done a lot. It is working in co-operation with the States. When we try to establish uniform legislation we sometimes forget that we are a federal system. It is pretty hard to get anything out of Queensland. It is hard to get Queensland to agree with very simple things, uch as a sugar agreement; imagine what it is like trying to get Queensland to recognise the drug problem and to come into an Australian initiated situation rather than a Queensland initiated situation. It is hard with all the States to get uniform drug laws going. The fact of the matter is that the steps have been instigated. The drug offensive is on the way and there is nothing that this Government has to be ashamed of. It has the scores on the board; the record is there for everyone to see. I believe that the Opposition has wasted its time today. This debate has been a debate about nothing. The evidence is not there. The Opposition's case has failed. I believe it has totally lost the argument. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Consideration resumed from 11 April, on motion by Mr Holding: That the amendment requested by the Senate be not made. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(3.53) —At the outset I would like to read into the record an amendment which I foreshadow the Opposition intends to move in the Senate: Page 147, after sub-clause 119 (7), add the following sub-clauses: ``(8) Notwithstanding any provision of any other Act, where a claim for a pension of a kind referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2) or an application for a review of a decision relating to such a claim for a pension was made before 15 May 1985 and not determined before the commencement of this Act, this Act shall have effect in respect of that claim or that application as if this section required the Commission to grant a claim for a pension unless the Commission is satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that there is no sufficient ground for granting the claim. ``(9) Where a claim for a pension of a kind referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2) or an application for a review of a decision relating to such a claim for a pension was made before 15 May 1985 and determined before the commencement of this Act, the person who made the claim or the application may request, in writing in accordance with a form approved by the Commission, the redetermination of that claim or that application. ``(10) Where a request is made under sub-section (9), the claim or the application in respect of which the request is made shall be deemed not to have been determined, and shall be determined in accordance with sub-section (8). ``(11) A claim or an application determined under sub-section (9) shall be deemed to have been so determined on the day on which that claim or application was determined before the commencement of this Act.''. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill was last before us in November 1985. It is now nearly five months later. The first point to be made in the consideration of this Bill is that the Government has caused the delay, not the Opposition as the Government fondly puts around. The business of this House is in the Government's hands. This is the Government's Bill. The Government could have brought in this Bill at any time since the Parliament has resumed but there has been this inexplicable delay of nearly five months. We do not accept any responsibility whatsoever for the delay in bringing this Bill back here. As it turned out, the Government has accepted all our amendments except one. Those amendments, a long list of them, have done nothing other than to improve this Bill and create a climate which will be beneficial to veterans. The Government has not accepted our amendments to clause 119, and that is because it does not believe that our view on retrospectivity is right. Mr Gear —Nor does the Senate. Mr WHITE —We will see about that when this legislation goes to the Senate. We stand very clearly by our opposition to the retrospectivity provisions of clause 119. I admit, as do most people, that there are obviously some different views and different divisions concerning retrospectivity. However, in our view, clause 119 is a retrospective provision and we do not agree that it should be passed into law. We believe that, when these claims were made on 15 May, they should have been dealt with by the law as it then stood. If we were to accept what the Government proposes certain of those claimants would be disadvantaged. It may well be that, in the normal course of events, some of the people who are claiming should not have their claims agreed to. However, the law as it stood then should be the law under which those claims are processed. We stand very firmly by that. The claim has been made by the Government that that would cost extra money. That may be so, but it is ridiculous to assert that people who have claimed benefits will cost more money so their claims should be knocked out under the existing Bill. These veterans have an entitlement. They have come before the Government to claim their entitlement. This Government is going to say to those people who have returned from active service: `We are going to change the law because you are going to cost us more money'. What a ridiculous thing to say. It is as ridiculous as including the veterans in the cost-cutting measures which this Government took in May last year. If there is some reason to review the benefits that veterans get in this country, let us do so by all means, and let us do it on the basis of what is fair and equitable; but, for goodness sake, to come here and say that veterans' benefits will be withdrawn, as the Government did last May, because they are too expensive is an insult to every man and woman who has ever served in the armed forces of this country, particularly those who have served overseas. The Government is saying: `Although promises had been made and the country was grateful when service people volunteered and went overseas to defend Australia, we are sorry but the time has come to cut a few costs and you will be part of that'. Nothing has insulted the veterans community more than that. If costs in this regard will be more than the Government thought, it should look to some of its other priorities, to some of its welfare spending, and to some of the money that the Minister for Social Security is so keen on handing round, wanting more and more in the coming Budget. But for God's sake, the Government should not look towards the veterans community to balance its Budget. Promises were made to those people. When they went away they were promised that they would be looked after. Generally speaking, those promises have been kept by successive governments of various persuasions. But I take great exception, as do all veterans, to that statement made in May last year in relation to veterans being included in the cost cutting measures of the Government. Those people will not forget. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) poses as a friend of the veterans. Yet since he has held the reins he has done nothing but chip and hack away at their entitlements, and they know that very well. The Opposition wants to see this Bill go through as quickly as possible. We do not take any blame because we have moved a series of amendments, all of which, except one, have been accepted by the Government. The passage of this Bill is in the Government's own hands. The Government, the veterans' organisations, the individual veterans, and we on this side of the House all want to see a sensible Bill pass quickly through Parliament and put in place. We very much hope that this attempt to put the Bill through will be successful, but this is a decision for the Government; it is not ours. The Opposition will not accept the spurious story being put around, particularly by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, that the Opposition is to blame for it. It is the Government's responsibility. I hope that when this Bill is in place and bedded down the Minister will turn his attention in a positive way to the requirements of returned servicemen and women and will do something about getting their claims heard quickly and efficiently. For three years, promises have been made that the new system will fix them up, but the new system is worse. The backlog is getting worse. It is not as though the number of veterans involved is unpredictable. It is probably the most predictable of government departments. So, the Opposition hopes that the Bill gets a speedy passage now and that the veterans community is not disadvantaged any longer. Mr GEAR(Canning)(4.05) —I do not have a great deal to say, but I would like to respond to the comment of the previous speaker, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), about the clause 119 provision not being retrospective. The bipartisan Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee certainly took the view that it was not retrospective, that is, that no benefits were taken away from people who had never had them. Possibly we should consider the effect of the Opposition's stand on this clause. It could mean that 27,000 claims decided since 6 June would go to the front of the determining queue for reconsideration ahead of everyone else, regardless of the outcome of the original decision. What it really means is that there will be chaos. When we look at the benefits that we provide to our returned soldiers it can be seen that they provide a balance between need and fiscal responsibility. In a previous address on this Bill the honourable member for McPherson spoke about the assets test, and I think that that is a classic example of how we need to balance need with fiscal responsibility. In revenue terms the cost of the position taken by the Opposition would amount to an expenditure of $80m over three years. I will come back to that matter a little later. Certainly, we should ask ourselves what the Returned Services League thinks of the amendments put up by the Opposition. Anyone who read the House Magazine of 19 March would have seen the following words in a column paid for by the RSL: The RSL with 269,767 members, Legacy with over 7,000, the War Widows' Guild with 25,000 and the TPI Federation representing 20,675 veterans are strongly united in calling on the Opposition to not press its remaining amendment. While it is calling for the Government to cut spending the Opposition is persisting with an amendment which would increase spending in an area where there is no demand from the ex-service community. So, there are the people who represent the veterans telling the Opposition to not go ahead with the amendment that it is trying to push today, but the Opposition is not listening to the RSL. Certainly Australia owes its former servicemen the very best of services that can be afforded. The previous speaker would have us believe that the present Government has no compassion for those in the ex-service community. What is the Government's record since it has been in office? It has increased spending on veterans' entitlements by 40 per cent; in real terms that is 20 per cent. If the Government really did not care about veterans and did not take any notice of what they were saying, why did it spend that extra 20 per cent? It seems to me that the Government does have the required measure of compassion towards the country's returned servicemen. Certainly, one should not measure compassion by dollar totals. I think that in this regard we should be looking at how this money is spent, whether it be in the veterans' entitlement area or the social security area in particular. One of the aims of the present Government-and one can look at the papers of recent days speculating on the outcome of the Budget before us-is to look at areas where possibly benefits are being given to people who do not really need them or do not deserve them. I think the Government should be doing that and ensuring that it targets its spending on people who really need it. One way of gauging the compassion of the former Government is to consider the request made by the Vietnam veterans-and it must be remembered that it was the former Government who sent them to Vietnam to get shot at, wounded, blinded and injured in other ways. Many servicemen ended up in wheelchairs while many others were sprayed by chemicals while in Vietnam. When the Vietnam veterans came back to Australia they asked the government of the day to hold an inquiry into the effects of agent orange. Did the people who sent them up there hold that inquiry? No, they did not. It was left to the present Government. Upon coming to office one of the first things we did was to take heed of what the Vietnam veterans wanted and we set up the Agent Orange inquiry. As the Opposition has pointed out, this Bill has been delayed for some time, which has meant a diminution of the benefits paid to personnel who served in the area of Vietnam's land and waters. Several of the people who served on the HMAS Sydney when it was taking war supplies and troops to Vietnam have come to see me at my electorate office-and I am sure that this would be the case with many other honourable members as well. By holding up this legislation the Opposition is denying those people the benefits that the Government would like to give them. I come back now to fiscal responsibility. For any benefit that we wish to give to any particular group in society, it is the case that the larger the number of recipients, the smaller the benefit that can be given from a given sum of money. The Opposition has said time and time again that it is committed to repeal the assets test. What the Opposition must tell us is whether it will raise taxes in order to give the pension to people who at present do not receive it, including at least 12 millionaires. Alternatively, will it lower the rate of pension for people who in many cases have no other form of income and who rely on the pension as their only means of support? If we allow those millionaires who previously received the pension-there are at least 12 of them and also many others of considerable wealth-to compete for a pension with pensioners who have no other form of income and whose pensions will consequently be reduced, we will really hit the people who rely on the pension. We should look at the fiscal record of the previous Government not only in relation to the veterans community but also for Australians at large. We should look at some of the promises that the Opposition has been making. I will run through very quickly some of the costings of some of these promises so that we can get an idea of just how much those Opposition promises will cost. I ask the veterans community and others to think about just what it would mean to them if they were to seek an increase in their benefits, and together with an increase in the number of people eligible for benefits in the future. The proposal of the Opposition to substitute tertiary education for the unemployment benefit would cost $600m. That is what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has proposed. He has proposed that, instead of receiving the unemployment benefit, those people should go to school for two days a week. The proposed additional expenditure on defence would cost $234m. The additional expenditure on health would cost $167m. The repeal of the assets test, to which I have alluded, would cost $140m. Once again, I point out to the veterans that that would disadvantage the poorest to the benefit of the more affluent. On taxation matters, the Opposition is still sticking to its policy of income splitting which will cost $1,900m. The Opposition's proposal to abolish tax on new oil will cost $480m. Its proposal to abolish the non-cash fringe benefits tax-it wants to let back into the system the old rorts-would cost $320m. The reinstitution of the entertainment expenses allowance would cost $310m. That would enable all people at the Melbourne Club to have their free lunches and rely on the taxpayers to pick up at least half the cost of it, irrespective of whether it is a business lunch; the Opposition is quite happy to let them do that. There are many other taxation revenue and expenditure implications that impinge upon the Federal budget from which the benefits to veterans are paid. If we add up the cost of the Opposition's promises, they amount to about $5,648m. The question I pose to the veterans community and to other sections of the community who look to the Government for support is: If the Opposition were to adopt the policy that it has been telling us it will adopt, with the Budget implications that add up to about $5,600m, what would happen to veterans in the future? Fiscal responsibility will go out of the window. Members of the Opposition have great ideas when they are in opposition. What they are doing today is asking the Government to accept their amendment to clause 119 which would further add to the cost to revenue. As has been pointed out by the Returned Services League, the veterans do not really need it and are not seeking it. So why does the Opposition continue with its amendment? The Government is to be congratulated on the passage of this legislation for the benefits that it will bestow on the veterans community and their families. It continues the tradition of the commitment of Labor governments to provide for the veterans of the Australian armed services and their families on the basis of need. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(4.14) —I rise to support the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) in this debate this afternoon. Before I do so, I wish to take up a couple of points made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear). Firstly, his claim in his closing statement that the Labor Government should be congratulated on the way that it has handled the Veterans' Entitlements Bill is wrong. The number of amendments to the Bill that have been accepted by the Government-I think some 39 in total-since the legislation was first introduced into the House indicate that at the very least, and describing it very kindly I suppose, it has been poorly drafted and poorly thought out. The other thing that is worth pointing out is that in the process of introducing this Bill such things as the reduction in entitlements to war widows formed part of the Government's proposal. The suggestion that the Labor Government should be congratulated for introducing that type of legislation into the Parliament really deserves a very sound rethink. The honourable gentleman also said that the Evatt Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam was set up by the Labor Government and that this was one of the main planks in its support of Vietnam veterans. It is worth pointing out to the House that, whilst the Royal Commission was appointed by the Labor Government, the Vietnam Veterans Association has found the report from that Royal Commission to be very disappointing. Certainly, if the Labor Government is prepared to take credit for appointing the Royal Commission, it must also be prepared to take the criticism of its report. This legislation which is before the House today, and which we have debated over previous months, is of particular concern to the people of the electorate of Gilmore. About 2,600 veterans and ex-service people live within the electorate of Gilmore. The electorate has not only a very strong ex-service population but also a very strong active defence personnel with, for example, HMAS Albatross, the Royal Australian Navy's air wing, one of the centrepieces of that active defence personnel, based in Nowra. Also, many of the people who work at HMAS Creswell, which is in the Australian Capital Territory, live in the electorate of Gilmore and look upon me as their local member to represent them in this Parliament. More recently, we have had the opening of the Army parachute training school at Nowra which has also boosted the number of people in the active defence personnel category in the electorate of Gilmore. This is a very important piece of legislation to the people who live in my electorate. The history of the legislation since it was introduced in May has been a cause for great concern amongst my constituents. In fact, it has been more than a cause of concern; it has caused outrage amongst the 2,600 ex-service personnel and the 2,800 to 3,000 active service personnel within the electorate. Probably the single greatest issue of concern has been the proposal that would have caused war widows, under the 40-year rule, to have lost all or part of their entitlements under the Labor Government's changes to the legislation. As a result of this issue in the electorate, I have seen take place probably one of the most effective lobbying exercises since I have been a member of this Parliament. There were 1,078 names on a petition that I presented to the House. There have been 238 individually written letters to my office, all of them expressing their extreme concern and indeed outrage at the Government's approach to veterans' entitlements. As I have travelled around the electorate, I have had the pleasure of attending a number of Returned Services League meetings. Indeed, I have even spoken with representatives of the Regular Defence Force Welfare Association. On each occasion when I have spoken to those RSL and organisational people they have said that they believe that the legislation is poorly thought out, that it really hits the wrong people and that it does a disservice to the ex-service community. Because of this we in the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia have been prepared to mobilise ourselves both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate and, by so doing, have been able to force through a number of amendments changing the Government's approach to the Bill. We have had tremendous assistance from the lobbying groups such as the RSL and the RDFWA. As a result, 39 amendments have been accepted by the Government out of a total of, I think, 41 that we have proposed in the Senate and in this House. Of those remaining two, there is a possibility that on one of them we may be able to come to some satisfactory arrangement. The other one is before the House today, that is, the one relating to retrospectivity. I believe that our campaign has been very successful both here and in the Senate. The success of our campaign highlights the great deal of support we have had from the ex-service community and from active service personnel; it also highlights the very poor nature of the original government legislation. We are now left to argue one of the last points, and that is retrospectivity. Over the years there has been a lot of debate about retrospectivity being applied to either this or to any other Bill that has come before the House. The basic principle is that if certain action is correct at the time it is done and if it subscribed to the rules of the day, to backdate rules so that what was once proper becomes improper after it has happened is grossly unfair. If one applies that very basic principle one sees that the Opposition is pursuing the right path. I know that we are prepared to pursue it all the way. The Opposition will continue to seek a fair deal for veterans who have submitted claims and applications before 15 May 1985. This will ensure that they will be dealt with according to the laws and rules that prevailed at that time. That sounds a fairly reasonable argument and I think most people would agree with it. The Government must relent on this issue. A recent letter of the Partially Blinded Soldiers Association stated: The Retrospectivity clause is outrageous. It appears as a deliberate attempt by the Minister or the Treasurer, or both, to avoid paying the disabled veteran money to which he is rightfully entitled. That is a fairly widespread attitude throughout our community; it is an attitude which I believe is right and proper, and for that reason we are pursuing it. The solution to the problem lies in the hands of the Government. I believe that we have done all we can to ensure that the right thing has been done. We have had as many of our amendments adopted as we could but this one remains outstanding. We require an appropriate outcome to this matter so that it can be settled once and for all and the concern and disquite in the ex-service community over the last 12 months or so can be put to rest. If the Government does not accept the Opposition's proposals its action will be seen for what it really is, that is, a backdated bite at the veterans of Australia. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(4.23) —Today I would like to address the question of retrospectivity in a rather different way, one which illustrates the difficulties we get into if we insist either on retrospectivity or on not having retrospectivity. Whichever way, one can make a case for things being unfair. The particular part of this legislation that illustrates this so well is the legislation which provides for war widows to retain their pensions on remarriage. The war widow's pension was awarded not simply as income support but as compensation for women who had, as a result of their husband's war service, either lost their husband or, very frequently, spent many years caring for him during lengthy and painful illness. I remind honourable members that a war widow's pension is available to women whose husbands died as a result of service or service-related disabilities, a widow whose husband's death was subsequently judged as related to war service, and widows of totally and permanently incapacitated veterans. For far too many years the compensation aspect of this pension was denied and women who remarried lost their pension rights. That is an interesting result of retrospective thinking, is it not? Apparently remarriage was supposed to be the compensation for all the loss and suffering borne by war widows. Incidentally, war widows were informed of this in a standard letter of the most amazing insensitivity reflecting extraordinarily Victorian attitudes, in which they were told that they were now the responsibility of their new husbands. It seems to me to be absolutely extraordinary that the Opposition, when it had the carriage of veterans' rights and the rights of war widows, seemed to think that this was a perfectly good response to taking away a compensatory pension from those women who had suffered. The suffering was still there but the compensation was no longer available if they remarried. These women had shown enormous strength and independence but they were dismissed as the mere appendages of their spouses. I was appalled when I first read that letter. It was brought to me by one of my constituents and I simply could not believe its wording or the principle behind it. I had actually believed Government spokesmen, who are now members of the Opposition, when they talked about how much the Government valued the service of those veterans and the service given by those veterans' wives and families in caring for their spouses. Yet the behaviour of these people was totally different. I took the letter to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) and he was equally appalled. This was very soon after I was elected and very soon after he became Minister. He immediately instructed his Department that it was simply not to talk to war widows in that peculiarly old fashioned and careless way. At that stage we began looking at the possibility of extending government funding to covering war widows' pensions whether or not those war widows remarried. Many of them brought up their families virtually single-handed, acted as unpaid nurses for many years, and quite often carried the major responsibility for small businesses they may have got into. They were wiped off by a selectively grateful government in a way that is nothing short of scandalous. The report of the Independent Inquiry into the Repatriation System stated: The requirement in the 1914 Act that a widow's pension was to be cancelled on her remarriage was discussed at length during the debates on the 1914 Bill. The general view of the non-government members was that the pension should be continued after remarriage as a right she ought to retain throughout her lifetime. The matter was raised again in 1916, when Parliament decided that the widow's pension should be continued for two years after her remarriage . . . The two year continuation of pension after marriage or remarriage fell prey to the depression restrictions and, as a result of the Financial Emergency Act 1931, the position reverted to what it had been prior to 1916. The final change in this area was in 1950 when a section was inserted in the Act providing for the payment of a remarriage gratuity equivalent to the pension for one year. Nothing changed from 1950 onwards. The way in which women were regarded in our society changed, the needs of women changed, the right they had to their independence changed, but the pension did not change. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill restores the right of women receiving this pension to retain it on remarriage if the remarriage has occurred on or after 29 May 1984. That does not restore the injustice that has been done to war widows who remarried before the date. We would very much like to be able to make this provision retrospective and to restore compensation to all widows who have remarried but that would provide the Government with an absolutely insoluble problem of finding the funding. The Government continues to recognise that an injustice has been done to those women. The legislation is retrospective to 29 May 1984; it ought to be, were we able to afford it, retrospective a good deal further. I ask the Opposition what it believes to be more right-applying that legislation retrospectively even further at the cost of some hundreds of millions of dollars or continuing to have retrospective allowance for people who have really no moral right to receive a pension because they put in their claim before the legislation was introduced. That would be a very selective use of retrospectivity. In addition to war widows retaining their pensions, they will continue to receive a domestic allowance, a special pension supplement, of $12 a week. The definition of a child is to be extended to include children dependent upon the veteran at the time of the veteran's death. So stepchildren are no longer excluded from the Act. It is rather extraordinary that an Opposition which continues to talk about the value of the family showed so little concern over so many years for the position of war widows when it could have done something to recognise and to ease the burden carried by widows and widows with children. The recognition of this injustice, repeated over many years during a time of great changes in the position of women in society, is in tune with many of the actions this Government has taken to raise the status of women in our society and to restore status where it has been taken away by previous governments. The Opposition needs to think very seriously about the effects of its request that the Senate's amendments to clause 119 be accepted by this place. If it were accepted there would be a very great argument for the retrospective restoration of war widows' pension to all who lost them on remarriage. The fiscal consequences of that would need to be considered seriously by both sides of this chamber. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(4.32) —I rise to speak this afternoon prompted not only by my deep feelings about the Veterans' Entitlements Bill 1986 but also by the voluminous contacts, protests and so on I have received from many of my constituents, many thousands of whom have served in the forces in years gone by and some thousands of whom are still in the forces. A great deal has been said about the need to reduce government spending in many areas and, in almost all cases, a positive argument for it exists. Whilst some of the comments I will be making may appear general, they are directly related to philosophies and thinking that have been-and, if not, that ought to have been-taken into account with regard to this very sensitive legislation. In talking about government spending I believe-this has been said many times-that the very last area that ought to be touched, if at all, by any government's trimming knife is the area of veterans' entitlements. I do not have to speak at length to convince honourable members that the group being disadvantaged by areas of this Bill, the group that would be disadvantaged without the amendments, is the group of Australians who were and still are prepared to pay the supreme sacrifice so that we can enjoy the priceless heritage of freedom and all the magnificent accompanying blessings which, sadly, seem to be taken lightly by the average Australian. In November last year the Opposition's very capable shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), who is sitting at the table at the moment, pointed out in an excellent speech that in the past, both sides of government have historically accepted their responsibility for our returned service personnel. He quoted two former Prime Ministers, Ben Chifley and Arthur Fadden, in support of the above assertion. Former Prime Minister Chifley said, with regard to our returned service personnel: On this Parliament rests the responsibility of seeing that the right thing shall be done. Former Prime Minister Fadden said: A grateful nation must see that those who are privileged to return from battle areas shall be properly cared for. Forty years down the track since World War II veterans were caused great concern by the Government's actions in many areas and a great outcry of protest occurred. Strong protests, together with the sunset clause moved by the Opposition, have caused the Government to recant in many areas, as we can see by the amendments that have been agreed to, not the least of which is the 40-year rule as it cruelly applied to widows. For the life of me I cannot understand the Government's seeming ingratitude to this sector of our community.The unnecessarily harsh treatment proposed by the Government would have caused great misery had the Opposition not succeeded with its six months review clause. Had the Opposition failed, it would almost have been reason enough to believe that a famous Anzac Day saying could easily have become-I say this with respect: `At the going down of the sunset clause and, in their mourning, we will remember them'. The new amendments, I am glad to say, provide a very encouraging reveille. The shadow Minister, along with the Opposition, is rightly proud of the contributions that have been made to amend this Bill. As a result of considerable agitation by the Opposition, benefits to Australian Army, Royal Australian Navy and Royal Australian Air Force enlistees will apply for the next period, as the Government has now accepted our amendment in relation to retaining repatriation cover for new enlistees until a proper defence compensation scheme is operating. The amendments, in accordance with coalition policy and mostly resulting from service organisations' strong protests, together with the doggedness of the shadow Minister, whom I commend, and the Opposition, are strongly supported. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.36) —I support the remarks made in this debate by my colleague the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer). I would like to be associated with the tremendous work he has done in his shadow ministerial portfolio since his appointment. I also support the views which have been expressed by the speaker who immediately preceded me, the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Web- ster). It does not surprise me that today we are still debating legislation which originated in the Parliament over one year ago, legislation which probably will do more to affect the rights and entitlements of Australian ex-service men and women than any other legislation that has been brought into the Parliament since World War II. I have said it before and I will say it again-it has to be said over and over again: Why is the Hawke socialist Government treating the ex-service men and women of Australia and their dependants in such a disgraceful manner? It is a matter of history, as I pointed out when I spoke during the second reading debate on the original legislation that came before the Parliament 12 months ago. Provisions such as the onus of proof provisions did not come about by accident. I noticed that a number of ex-servicemen, honourable and distinguished members of this chamber, were present at the time of that debate. The provisions in relation to the onus of proof were the result of an extremely forceful, and ultimately successful, bipartisan campaign. I remind the Parliament, the ex-service men and women of Australia and, indeed, the people of Australia, that two very great Australians fought very hard to get a proper onus of proof provision in the legislation. One of them was the late Dr H. V. Evatt, a great leader of the Australian Labor Party, a great jurist and a great lawyer. The other great Australian, on our side of the political fence, who fought particularly hard was Sir John Spicer. All they achieved-I notice the presence in the chamber of the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), whose interest in matters affecting our ex-service community is well known throughout this country-was destroyed effectively last year, quite deliberately, by the Hawke socialist Government. To my intense regret, I have seen a downgrading of the treatment of Australian ex-service men and women and their dependants almost from the moment that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) came to office. That the system was in ways defective, that there was a need for greater efficiency, cannot be disputed. But we have seen the Government taking a sledge-hammer to crack a peanut and its actions have caused enormous damage, both present and potential, to brave men and women who fought to keep this country free and also to their dependants, many of whom are now suffering extreme hardship. I will not read the proposals advanced so eloquently by my colleague the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I am anxious not to incur your displeasure, Mr Deputy Chairman, by spreading too widely in my remarks, but I feel some personal involvement in this, for two reasons. The first is that my father is a life member of the Returned Services League and all my uncles served in the Army, the Royal Australian Navy or the Royal Australian Air Force in World War II. Mr Slipper —Great family. Mr HODGMAN —I thank the honourable member. My brother, of whom I am intensely proud, who is well known to many members of this Parliament, and particularly to my colleague and friend the honourable member for Kooyong, serves as a lieutenant-commander in the Royal Australian Navy and is currently on secondment in the United States. We are very much a defence-orientated family. Secondly, I believe and have been told by successive Ministers for Veterans' Affairs that probably more veterans affairs cases come through my parliamentary office than through any other parliamentary office in Australia. The reason is two-fold: I have known many of the people concerned through my involvement with ex-service organisations over 25 years and my long but fairly undistinguished career in the Royal Australian Navy Reserve, and the fact that, even though lawyers are not permitted to appear in the bulk of proceedings, there is nothing to prevent members of parliament with legal qualifications-I am quite sure that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) at the table has been involved in such matters-assisting veterans. All proceedings prior to and including those of the Veterans Review Board expressly prohibit the appearance of persons with legal qualifications. But from the Veterans Review Board there are now two avenues of appeal in which parliamentarians with legal qualifications can appear. One is the administrative Appeals Tribunal. I am directly involved in a large number of appeals to that Tribunal, many of which will take place during the parliamentary winter recess. The other, on points of law, is to the Federal Court of Australia. I do not stray too far, Mr Deputy Chairman. I am very conscious of that because you have always been, and I respectfully submit will continue to be, a very fair Deputy Chairman. These sorts of cases come to my office. The kinds of things that bug me-I appeal to the Government to do something about them-are cases such as that, firstly, of an ex-serviceman who, despite obvious disability, says to himself, his wife and his family: `I will not claim the pension'. Subsequently, that family falls on hard times and the ex-serviceman dies. His widow is now in a position in which it is virtually impossible to obtain the justice to which she is rightly entitled. I do not cite names of cases in this Parliament, but I mention one very recent case, the Lockley case. The veteran concerned would not apply for a pension until he was virtually on his deathbed. He lodged an application and has now died. His widow is virtually in an impossible situation because the records of that ex-serviceman, going back 40 years, are incomplete, parts are missing. A government should have compassion. Indeed, the Evatt-Spicer onus of proof amendment which was placed in this legislation as a result of a bipartisan campaign provided that the pension would be paid unless it could be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the disability was not service-related or war-caused. Of course, that provision has gone. The second matter that concerns me-I say this with some trepidation with Administrative Appeals matters coming up, in which I appear in a totally honorary capacity-is that now, thanks to the legislation of this Government, it has to be shown that the retirement or death was a result alone of war service. In other words, if an intervening health problem has developed the pension is not paid. I think of one case which is very fresh in my mind in which it was argued that because of a novus actus interveniens-another health condition appearing subsequently-the ex-serviceman had retired, not because of a war-caused disability but because of the other health condition. It has to be proved alone. That is almost an impossibility. Mr Webster —It is enough to cause an early death. Mr HODGMAN —I keep this non-political, but some people have gone to a premature grave because of the rigours of this system. The argument about onus of proof and the changing retrospectivity of the rights and entitlements of ex-service men and women and their dependants has been well covered by the shadow Minister. I take the opportunity in the remaining seconds available to me to compliment him and the Opposition for sticking to their guns in this matter when others, with the best will in the world, were urging that we change our position. I say to the shadow Minister that we will be able, many years down the track, to look back on this as a time of honour where we did our best for the ex-service men and women of Australia. We are talking about 650,000 people. If we include dependants, the figure is higher. Last, but not least, what sort of a government is it which has become so petty-fogging that it has put ex-service men and women on the same basis as anybody else for pharmaceutical benefits? How mean and miserable can we get? Mr Webster —And ungrateful. Mr HODGMAN —How ungrateful, as the honourable member so correctly says. In conclusion, I remind you, Mr Deputy Chairman, that you came from the United Kingdom when after World War I ex-servicemen were standing on street corners selling matches. That will happen in this country, no thanks to the Hawke socialist Government which stands condemned. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(4.48) —At the outset, I say that I have not only an intellectual but also an emotional commitment to the affairs of veterans. As did the father of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), my father served throughout the Second World War, throughout the siege of Tobruk, as did one of his late brothers. His other brother served in Singapore, at the fall, but managed to escape. My father is a totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner. Through him, I have naturally come in contact with very many ex-service men and women. My dedication to their cause is total and intellectual, and I have no hesitation in saying that there is also an emotional commitment. Why should there not be? These men and women have risked their lives for this country. Mr Webster —You would not be standing here, if it were not for them. Mr NEHL —That is right. This country has a debt of honour to every returned service man and woman. Mr Slipper —Why does the Government hate ex-servicemen? Mr NEHL —The honourable member may well ask. Mr Hand —I take a point of order. That is outrageous, that hoon over there saying that sort of thing. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Blanchard) —There is no point of order. Mr NEHL —If the honourable member for Melbourne wants to raise a point of order-a spurious one at that-he might at least get to his feet. Mr Hand —I take a point of order. The honourable member suggested that the Government hates ex-servicemen. That is an outrageous lie. That is what I was responding to. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —That is an observation, not a point of order. The honourable member will continue. Mr Slipper —I take a point of order. I object to the words used by the honourable member for Melbourne. I ask that they be withdrawn. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —To what words do you refer? Mr Slipper —The word `lie'; and I believe he may have used another word as well, the word `hoon'. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I ask the honourable member for Melbourne to withdraw those words. Mr Hand —No. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I again ask the honourable member for Melbourne to withdraw. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Chairman, the comment was made by the honourable member for Fisher that the Government hated ex-servicemen. As a member of the Government, I say that that is not true and the comment should not have been made. The comment is a lie; it is not true. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The word `lie' is an unparliamentary term and the honourable member for Melbourne has been a member of the House long enough to know that he should withdraw. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Chairman, in deference to you, I withdraw the word `lie'; nonetheless the comment is not true and in itself should not have been uttered in this place. Mr NEHL —People who get to read today's Hansard will certainly have some indication of the attitude of the Australian Labor Party. Mr Hand —What do you mean by that? Mr NEHL —Get back in your box! I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to a number of matters related to this Bill and the Senate's amendment. One matter that concerns me greatly is the way in which we treat our veterans. I draw attention to the revised rates for travel and subsistence, put out by the Department of Veterans' Affairs and applied from 1 July 1985. Honourable members will realise that it is often necessary for a veteran to travel some distance in private vehicles for appointments related to entitlement claims, pension review or approved medical treatment. As from 1 July 1985 the reimbursement rate for the use of a private car was 11.16c per kilometre, irrespective of engine size. I refer also to the Department of Veterans' Affairs claim for travel form D800A, in which it is stated quite clearly that rates for travel costs, accommodation and meals are the same as those paid to Commonwealth Government employees. Obviously either there has been a monumental slip-up or the Department has tried to pull the wool over the eyes of our veterans because the reality is that the rates paid to veterans are most definitely not the same as those paid to Commonwealth Government employees. They may have been. If they have been reduced, why have they been reduced? Why are veterans being treated as second-class citizens? The reality is that while veterans are paid only 11.16c per kilometre the allowance for some public servants at least-I refer to Australia Post circular No. 324 of 1985-is, effective on and from 4 December 1985 and varying according to the size of the engine, from 32.8c per kilometre to 22.8c per kilometre. I remind the Committee that veterans get 11.16c only per kilometre. Of course the claim form still says that rates are the same as those paid to Commonwealth Government employees, but that is not the case at all. This causes a great deal of hardship from time to time for many veterans. I refer to a letter sent to me by a member of the North Coast District Council of the Returned Services League: You will see the enormous discrepancy between the travelling and subsistence allowances paid to Commonwealth Public servants to that of war veterans. This difference is most important to country veterans who have to travel long distances for specialist treatment, in my case I have three specialists whom I have to visit from time to time. They have their surgeries at three different localities. For travel to location A, a round trip of 136 kilometres, at the rate of 11.16c he is paid $15.17. At the Public Service rate of 31c he would be paid $42.16. A trip to location B, of 222 kilometres return, brings him $24.77 in car allowance, whereas the Public Service rate of 31c would provide him with $68.82. Again, for location C, a trip of 280 kilometres return, the rate of 11.16c provides him with $31.26 while the Public Service rate of 31c would bring him $86.80. It costs a veteran just as much to run his car as it costs a public servant. I do not think anybody in this country can understand why there should be such discrimination against veterans. My correspondent continues: These figures show the blatant discrimination against veterans and it is requested that you most vigorously protest to government on our behalf, and have the stigma of second-class citizenship removed. I am writing this letter on my own behalf, not from any organisation. Any help you can give will be appreciated by all veterans. I suggest to the Government that any help it can give would be appreciated by all veterans as well. I move to the question of subsistence. I remind honourable members that the claim for travel form says that rates are the same as those paid to Commonwealth Government employees. As from 1 July 1985 subsistence for veterans is $40 a night, with meal allowances of $5 for breakfast-applicable only if overnight absence is involved-$5 for lunch and $12 for dinner. Compare this with Australia Post circular No. 132 of 1985, which sets out increases to travelling and meal allowances and overtime meal allowance rates on and from 28 May 1985. Whereas a veteran gets $40 a night, an Australia Post employee staying in a capital city, depending on salary, gets $107 or $80.20. Elsewhere, in the country, the rate is $75 or $63. The veteran gets only $40. Is the veteran supposed to sleep in the park, or sleep at some dosshouse? Where can one get full accommodation in the city for $40? I do not know where that is possible, and I move around a fair bit. For a capital city an Australia Post employee is paid a meal allowance of $30.70 and elsewhere $25.75, compared with the total paid to a veteran of $22. Why are we being skinflints? Why are we cutting back on food allowances for veterans? I would like in conclusion to make some reference to totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners. I stress once again that if we go back to the original legislation in this Parliament we will see that the TPI pension is not work-related; it is compensation for suffering, for pain. It is most definitely not work-related. Any relationship with work should not be a factor in awarding TPI pensions. People out in the electorates are commonly starting to believe that, because in many cases there is up to two years delay in getting pensions, the Department is waiting for people to die. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(4.58) —We all know that immediately following World War I this Parliament enacted the Repatriation Act to provide pensions and treatment for veterans and war widows as compensation for loss and disability suffered in the service of their country. It is a fact that World War II and other arenas of conflict have caused that original legislation to become progressively more complex and more diverse, to a point where a single co-ordinated document is in my view desperately needed. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill is the result of that need. I believe that the Bill not only is the most important development in repatriation legislation since 1920 but also must be applauded and generally supported by this Parliament and the Australian people. There is no doubt that in my electorate-I am sure it is reflected in the electorates of all other members-veterans have been taking a most active interest in the progress of this Bill. It is an issue which has been very clearly defined in their minds and an issue about which they have taken every opportunity to acquaint political friends and opponents alike of their strongly held views. It is a most important piece of legislation and I think that the Government and the Opposition have done well to give it the attention they have. I am sorry that we do not seem to have more Government speakers taking part in this debate, but perhaps that is due to some arrangement. Beyond the statement of general support, I have two concerns with the Bill. The first is the Government's reluctance to accept the Opposition's request for an amendment which would have the effect of having all repatriation claims received up to 15 May 1985 processed according to the legislation in force at that time. My second concern is at the unnecessary uncertainty and distress caused to veterans and war widows by the insensitive manner in which the Government has handled this draft legislation. I do not want to rant about that, but it is a very real fact that veterans in my electorate, and I am sure in other electorates, have felt most aggrieved at the way in which this legislation has been handled by the Government. They believe that their proper rights have not been closely attended. They believe that in many cases the Government is waiting for them to die in the hope that it might save the Government some money. Obviously the Government would deny that point of view, but it has been expressly put to me. The Opposition parties have sought 41 amendments to this Bill. They were considered to be essential amendments, and the Government has belatedly acceded to that point of view by accepting 39, and accepting an adjustment to one other that made it acceptable. Therefore, only one amendment remains as an outstanding issue and that is the matter of retrospectivity. Other speakers have given detailed comment on this retrospectivity matter, but it seems to me that it can be expressed briefly and boldly to get to the core of the dispute between the Government and Opposition parties. Veterans' claims received prior to 15 May 1985 would, without the existence of a sunset clause introduced by the Opposition, have been treated according to the so-called O'Brien criteria. These criteria are more generous than those applying after May 1985 and their continued use would mean increased outlays by the Government on veterans' claims. This Government wants to introduce a retrospectivity clause into the draft legislation which would permit it to process all claims and applications received before 15 May 1985 according to the post-O'Brien criteria. That means, in simple terms, the application of less expensive criteria-not better or fairer criteria for veterans and war widows, but criteria which give this Labor Government the cheapest way out of its responsibilities. That is why the Opposition wants an amendment to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill-an amendment which will ensure that veterans are subjected to the laws of the land as they existed at the time of their claim, rather than laws enacted for the totally dishonest objective of making life easier for the Government. I know that I shall not have to remind all those veterans throughout Australia that this is the crux of the Government's position on this matter. If the Opposition were to accept the Government's demands for retrospectivity, where would it end? Could veterans and this Parliament face a further amending piece of legislation six months or a year down the track, with the Government seeking additional retrospectivity to avoid another aspect of this legislation which the Government decides at that time is causing its veterans outlays to exceed its Budget? No, the Opposition's position is clear and unequivocal. Those past claims and applications must be treated according to the criteria in force at that time. It is the only fair and honest way of dealing with them. The Government's dishonest approach to this matter of retrospectivity is indicative of its confused and extremely insensitive handling of the draft legislation generally-legislation which is critical to the day by day well-being of about one million ex-service personnel and 190,000 war widows. These people have had to live through almost 12 months of uncertainty as to the rules and conditions which are to apply to their pensions and treatment criteria. These people, who did not hesitate to give service to their country in its time of need, are entitled to better treatment than they have received from this Government. Let us consider the heavy-handed and dictatorial approach of this Government to this whole matter. Its intention to introduce major revisions to the repatriation legislation was announced in the May 1985 mini-Budget of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). It was not announced as a thoughtful innovation to assist the administration of veterans' affairs. It was announced as being necessary to contain, and indeed to reduce, the rapid growth in veterans' benefits and allowances. It is no use blaming the Opposition for any delay. The fact of the matter is that the original legislation and the original intention of the Government have produced, quite understandably, outrage among the veterans' community. The Opposition quite properly put 41 amendments to the proposed legislation, 39 of which have been accepted in whole and one in part. Therefore, the Government cannot blame the Opposition for the delay and uncertainty which has been created in this matter. I wish to focus on the insensitive way in which the matter has been handled. The approach does no credit to the Government. It is all very well to say that the Government is in a difficult budgetary situation-we all know that. When the vast majority of these veterans were asked to answer a call to serve their country they did so, immediately in many cases and with the best will in the world, to preserve their nation from what they perceived to be a very real threat. When they were asked to serve their country there were no ifs or buts about the approach of those asking: `Join the forces, we will look after you following the conflict'. So they joined the forces, and the view has been held by all parties until recently that those people should be rewarded for their service to the country in time of very real threat. Now we have an approach that seems to suggest that we have to pare away at the edges of that support for veterans and war widows following service to the country. I do not think it is good enough. It is one of those areas where an original commitment was given, an original promise was made, an original request was answered, and people took very real risks to serve their country. Now we have a government whose approach has been characterised by a spirit of meanness. Let us take one area of meanness, the question of allied veterans' entitlements. It was proposed to cut that off from 1 September 1957. That would have cut out allied veterans from the Malaysian unpleasantness and the conflicts there and the Vietnam conflict. One would hesitate to suggest that the Government was influenced in its attitude by anything other than cost cutting. I believe that it was not, but it did appear to be mean, to be separating out people who had fought in those risky circumstances in the same way as the others. Here again we have the Opposition seeking to ensure that allied personnel will experience exactly the same conditions, whether they served before September 1957 or after that date. It is a typical example of the mean-minded approach that has characterised this Government's attitude towards its support of veterans. Let us remember that these people in their hundreds of thousands answered the call to defend their country. We should not as a Parliament allow any suggestion that somehow, for sheer mean-minded economic reasons, we will not allow them the support they were promised at the time they came forward to serve this nation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(5.09) —I am privileged and honoured to join those speakers from the Opposition in this place who are opposing the Government's attempts to enforce retrospectivity in the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. As earlier speakers have said, young men and women, the cream of Australia's youth came forward to represent this nation and to fight for God, King and country in the great conflicts which have confronted the world in the twentieth century. Many of those people died, many were injured and many continue to suffer today from war inflicted injuries. I would like to pay tribute to the Returned Services League of Australia and its work around Australia and the way in which it safeguards, looks after and represents the interests of Australia's ex-service men and women. I would also like to pay tribute to Sir William Keys for the tremendous negotiations that he has undertaken on behalf of the League with the Government over the Veterans' Entitlements Bill, which has been before this Parliament for over 12 months. It is unfortunate that the Government found it necessary to bring the Parliament back for one day in May 1985 at a cost of perhaps $200,000 or more to accept the Opposition's determination not to agree to the Government's initial proposals, which proposals would have been to the grave detriment of Australian ex-service men and women. The Opposition put forward 41 amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. There have been sustained negotiations and discussions among the ex-service community, the Opposition and the Government, as a result of which 39 amendments have been accepted by the Government. I commend the Government for accepting those 39 amendments, because it is important to remember that we must protect the interests of those people who have given up and offered so much in order to ensure that we can live in a democracy and enjoy the freedom that we do in Australia. However, it is sad that the Government has not accepted the Opposition's point of view in relation to two matters. One matter has subsequently been resolved, but the other is still outstanding. The National Party of Australia makes no apology for opposing retrospectivity in this place. In fact, the National Party opposes retrospectivity in all matters of legislation, because we believe that a citizen is entitled to expect that the law will remain in the same form as it was when an act or something was done and that it is quite wrong for a person to be judged subsequently on the basis of the law changed retrospectively. This is why the National Party says that all applications submitted prior to 15 May 1985 by ex-service men and women should be dealt with under the law as it then stood. It is wrong for the Government to change the rules subsequently. It is wrong for the Government to hurt and ignore the interests of those people who made their applications on the basis of the existing law. The other matter which the National Party is pleased has been resolved is that new enlistees in the Australian Army, Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force will now be dealt with under repatriation cover. The Government, to its shame, proposed that new enlistees be taken out of repatriation cover with a rather vague promise that a defence compensation scheme would be legislated for. The National and Liberal parties insisted that the new enlistees remain under repatriation cover until the new scheme was passed and operating. That is a very important point, because we must remember that the Government should not take away cover from those people who are now enlisting in our armed forces unless there is a scheme that is able to protect them. The airy-fairy idea of removing their cover now with the possible promise of protecting them in some vague way in the future was not accepted by the Opposition. We have insisted that these people be protected and I am pleased that the Government has accepted our approach and that in the future these people, until the new scheme is operating, will be able to carry out their duties with confidence and will not be concerned about where they stand should something happen to them while they are in service. It is sad that at present there is only one Government member in the chamber and that is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who is the Minister at the table. It is even sadder that only two members, I believe, of the Australian Labor Party saw it as fit and necessary to speak on this Bill. I ask myself: Is this an indication of the concern of the Government for the ex-service men and women of this country? I believe that some matters should be the subject of bipartisan politics in Australia. The way in which we protect the interests of our ex-service men and women is one such area. As I mentioned earlier, many of those people served overseas and offered their lives to ensure that we could enjoy the freedoms that we do today. It was unfortunate that the Government introduced last year the legislation in the form that it did. It created a great deal of uncertainty. My electorate office has a voluminous amount of correspondence from ex-service men and women, ex-service organisations, and dependants of ex-servicemen, all of whom were concerned and worried. It is now over 40 years since the Second World War finished but those people, at their stage of life, have been subjected to a great deal of torment, uncertainty, worry and stress. I think that the Government should be condemned for letting this situation continue for over 12 months. I believe that there are now 979,700 ex-service personnel and 187,200 war widows, making a total of 1,166,900 ex-service and related personnel in Australia. There are 7,594 Australians and 2,431 New Zealanders who made the supreme sacrifice for their country at Gallipoli. There are 387,300 veterans living in Australia who saw operational service overseas, including 5,300 from World War I. My own grandfather, Mr Archie McIntyre, served in all three forces and served in two world wars. I have spoken to him on many occasions and I understand his concern and the concern of his colleagues and those people who served with him. The retrospectivity has caused great worry to many people in the ex-service community. I quote a comment from the Partially Blinded Soldiers Association which states: The retrospectivity clause is outrageous. It appears as a deliberate attempt by the Minister or the Treasurer, or both, to avoid paying the disabled veteran money to which he is rightfully entitled. The National Party opposes retrospectivity and will continue to do so. Before I conclude, I would like to congratulate the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), who is a Vietnam veteran and who has represented the ex-service community, in conjunction with the RSL, in such an excellent way. I believe that he should be applauded and that the thanks of the RSL throughout Australia and the entire ex-service community will be extended to him. In supporting our ex-service community, I believe that we must return to a spirit of bipartisanship. I hope that this is a lesson the Government has learnt and that we will not see the same callous attitude repeated in the future. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(5.19) —I just want to make a few short remarks, because the Government is concerned to obtain speedy passage of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. However, I should respond to the suggestion of the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) that there was only one Government member in the chamber. The fact is that many Government members wanted to speak on this legislation. It was a question of either halving the time of Opposition members or extending to them the courtesies that ought to be extended to an Opposition in this Parliament. It was decided that it was more appropriate to let Opposition members speak and to curtail Government members because the points raised in this debate are fairly narrow and it was felt that I could handle those matters for and on behalf of the Government. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) sought specific comments on amendments Nos 24, 26 and 30, and it is appropriate that I respond to those. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills drew attention to the number of provisions in the Veterans' Entitlements Bill where it appeared that parliamentary scrutiny of Repatriation Commission decisions might not be adequate. Several of the Senate's requests and amendments dealt with the issues raised by the Committee.The Government's amendments in turn accommodate, either directly or indirectly, the apparent concerns of the Committee. In doing so the Government has taken into account the balance that has to be struck between the necessary degree of parliamentary scrutiny on the one hand and the Repatriation Commission's capacity to deliver a speedy and efficient service to the veteran community on the other. The Government accepts that the Bill should be amended to provide for greater parliamentary scrutiny. In particular, the Government has decided that the Commission should be required to base its charges for community patients-that is, patients not entitled to free treatment as eligible veterans under the Act-on the charges payable by private patients in public hospitals. As presently drafted, the Bill would enable the Commission to determine the charges to be made in its own discretion, and here I refer to amendment No. 24. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs should be required to table a copy of the vehicle assistance scheme and the veterans' children education assistance scheme, or any approved variations thereto, before each House of Parliament. As presently drafted, the Bill provides only for ministerial approval of the schemes, and here I refer to amendments Nos. 26 and 30. The Government has accepted most of the Senate's amendments providing for the making of regulations in lieu of a Repatriation Commission determination amendments Nos. 27 and 28 and 31 to 46 inclusive. But in these cases the Government believes that provisions requiring the basing of hospital charges on those charges already determined for the community at large by various Commonwealth and State agreements and the provisions for the tabling of those schemes are a sufficient and preferable means of providing both parliamentary scrutiny and a flexibility within the Commission and on the part of the Minister to meet changes as they may arise. The two schemes in particular are entirely beneficial and it is important that the Commission be able to respond to the needs of the veteran community without the necessity of the constant making of regulations. On some of the more general questions raised in the course of the debate I believe that the Government has shown itself to be completely responsible. I thus accepted sunset clauses on two occasions. It has accepted the substance of 40 of 42 amendments and requests passed by the Senate, but it is not prepared to accept a spur- ious, so-called retrospectivity amendment put forward by the Opposition. Virtually everybody agrees that the O'Brien decision had to be negatived. Certainly the Returned Services League and Legacy accept that and both those organisations have a prime responsibility towards the veterans community. Even the Opposition, which was responsible for the drafting debacle of section 47 in 1977, agrees that section 47 had to be amended to overcome the excesses of the O'Brien decision. Mr White —We all agree with that. Mr HOLDING —I take it that we are all agreed on that. Yet the Opposition adheres to an amendment despite that agreement which would have the effect of applying the O'Brien decision to around 27,000 claims lodged before 15 May last year, of which only 2,000 have not been determined. The irony is that many of these claims were lodged well before the judgment of the High Court of Australia in the O'Brien case was handed down. The Opposition has a somewhat crazy understanding of retro- spectivity. How can retrospectivity be involved in negating a High Court decision of February 1985 in respect of claims which were lodged before then? The Opposition's amendment would add considerably to expenditure-as much as $80m over the next three years-if it were passed. Where is the Waste Watch Committee when Australian taxpayers need it? Where is it when the Opposition so blithely says: `That is another $80m and what does that matter'? It matters a great deal because that will come out of the Budget entitlement of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and, in so doing, will lessen the benefits and the entitlements of others who have a more legitimate basis upon which their claims rest. The strange part about all this is that the Opposition agrees that section 47, as interpreted by the O'Brien decision, went too far and had to be changed. The ex-service community does not want this unnecessary and extravagant amendment. The Returned Services League, Legacy, the Totally and Permanently Disabled Soldiers Association and the War Widows Guild all understand basic concepts, such as economic responsibility, equity in administration and priorities in expenditure. The Opposition does not. Waste Watch is dead. Waste spread is the Opposition's irresponsible by-word in its unfortunate approach to this matter. Let me remind Opposition members of one more thing. Let them cast their minds back to the reason they gave for meeting the sunset clause in June last year-to give time to consult the ex-service community about the provisions of the VEB, particularly the replacement of section 47. What happened? There was the fullest consultation with the ex-service community, with the result that an agreed clause 119 was placed in the VEB with no so-called retrospectivity clause. The ex-service organisations made it clear that they do not support the Opposition's amendment. The Government has been meticulous in doing exactly what was sought by the Opposition. It consulted fully. It reached agreement on clause 119. It has responsibility compromised by accepting 40 out of 42 amendments proposed by the Senate. When we talk about consensus it seems to me that very few pieces of legislation-I cannot remember one-have come before this Parliament, in the term of either the previous Government or this Government, and had so many amendments accepted in the spirit of compromise. The Opposition, on this one narrow issue, where I think it has thoroughly misconceived the whole concept of retrospectivity, has shown itself to be out of step with the major ex-service organisations. Its amendment is not wanted. The Opposition, including the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper), knows that if the amendment were to be accepted it would cause chaos and delays in the determining system. Virtually everybody agrees that it would provide pensions for thousands of people who, in terms of providing the nexus between their conditions and their war service, would not normally be entitled to receive a pension. It would lead to the sheer waste of up to $80m over three years. As I have pointed out, those funds can be far more adequately and justly spent on those who have a legitimate and appropriate claim up on the revenues of this country for their war service. For those reasons, that aspect of the Opposition's case will be rejected. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(5.29) —Briefly, as we are in Committee and the right of response extends to both sides, I thank the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) for his detailed information in respect of amendments No. 24, 26 and 30 as part of Schedule C. That will be examined further in another place. It certainly is of assistance to know that the provisions of those clauses, indirectly if not directly, are in compliance with the original intention of the Senate's amendment. Turning to the more general remarks of the Minister, I would like to remind the Committee that, in a letter dated 23 November 1985, the Returned Services League said that it was concerned about the issue of retrospectivity. The only reason for the slight change in its position in recent weeks was in fact given away by the Minister, who is at the table, when he mentioned blackmail, because that is what it is-blackmail in terms of the budget of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. I shall read to the Committee what the RSL said on retrospectivity in the letter dated 23 November 1985: According to the Government the onus of proof provisions in the Repatriation Act 1920 had to be amended because the application of the High Court's decision in the O'Brien case would make the grant of applications and claims automatic. Legal opinion available to us indicated that this rationale is not valid. In any case, there are many applications which were submitted years before the decision in the O'Brien case was handed down. These applications have now battled their way up through the determining system and have now reached the final stage for determination. It would be reasonable and indeed expected for the Government to provide a savings provision to protect the applications and claims received at the Department before 15 May 1985 from any retrospective effect of the changes. That was a communication from the RSL, signed by Sir William Keys, to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), and I think that that more accurately reflects the position of the RSL and the veterans' organisations, albeit a position that has been slightly adjusted since. I will not say any more other than that the reason that has been adjusted is that the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the veterans' organisations have been told that, if the Department has to spend additional money in complying with this retrospective amendment, it will perhaps be taken off the repatriation hospital system or from another part of the Veterans' Affairs budget. We do not believe in that sort of blackmail. We believe that the problems with the repatriation hospital should be addressed as a matter of priority. Over 50 veterans a week are being turned away from some of our repatriation hospitals-20 of them from the Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital-and those people desire and need essential surgery. The reason for that is that, for example, 134 beds out of 504 beds at the Melbourne Repatriation Hospital are not in use. That is an alarming circumstance, and one problem area that should be rectified. I know this is outside or on the periphery of matters before the Chair, and therefore I will not dwell on the matter. However, 134 beds from a total of 504 beds have been closed. We do not accept that the Government has a right to come here and say that it will close more beds or further reduce travel allowances because it will not accept our retrospective amendment. I can tell the Minister, who is at the table, that Waste Watch is alive and well, and it is as well that it should be. Our whole approach is to seek an efficient and effective system of government in this country in respect of all departments and particularly in relation to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The Committee might like to know that the cost of administration of the Freedom of Information Act just at the moment has hit the $1m mark in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Estimates made available recently indicated that the Department had collected the grand total of $540 from applications under the Freedom of Information Act but had had to expend just under $1m to execute the administration of that one piece of legislation, the Freedom of Information Act, important as that is. Of course, there are 101 areas that I could focus on, but it would be wrong to do so in the circumstances of the Committee debate on the Senate amendments. Let me summarise by saying that this Schedule C as it stands represents a very big victory for the strong and effective stand taken by the coalition in conjunction with the many veterans' organisations across this country and in conjunction with other forces in the Senate to bring the Government to its senses on this veterans' legislation. That is why we took the stand that we did. That is why we moved those amendments which were adopted in the Senate, and that is why the Government is back here today with a Schedule which adopts 40 out of our 42 amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. We make no apology whatsoever for our approach since May. In fact, to put the whole matter into perspective, had the Government moved more quickly and had more detailed consultation at the time of the mini-Budget legislation, about which there was very little consultation with the RSL in relation to those parts of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill which were actually rushed through this Parliament, this problem would not have arisen, and particularly the retrospective problem would not have arisen whatsoever. The O'Brien High Court decision was given in February, but any announcement of the legislation did not come through until May. It was the Government's decision to delay an immediate response or make an announcement which in turn led to the processing of a lot of the applications which were submitted before May and which then led in turn to this retrospective amendment before the Chair. As it stands, I believe that Schedule C is indeed acceptable to the coalition, because it does embrace the many amendments that were pursued right across Australia and beyond in meetings with Australian veterans as well as allied veterans. We look forward to the passage of this legislation, but in terms which are reasonable and which are effective to those who served their country in time of war. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Motion (by Mr Holding) agreed to: That in the message returning the Bill to the Senate the Senate be informed that its request for amendments would be acceptable to the House in the form indicated in Schedule C if proposed in conjunction with certain amendments also indicated in Schedule C. Schedule C read as follows- (1) Clause 2, page 1, line 7, omit ``on 5 December 1985'', substitute ``on a date to be fixed by Proclamation''. (2) Clause 5, page 7, line 13, after sub-clause (11) add the following sub-clause: ``(12) In this Act, a reference to a person, or a unit of the Defence Force, that was allotted for duty in an operational area shall be read as a reference to a person, or unit of the Defence Force- (a) that was so allotted for duty in accordance with administrative arrangements applicable in the part of the Defence Force in which the person was serving, or of which that unit formed a part, as the case may be; or (b) that is, by an instrument in writing signed by the Minister for Defence, deemed to have been allotted for duty in an area described in item 4 or 8 in Schedule 2 during the periods specified in that term.''. (3) Clause 6, page 9, lines 27 to 43, omit paragraphs (5) (a) and (b), substitute the following paragraphs: ``(a) shall be taken to have commenced- (i) if the person was in Australia on the day as from which the person was allotted for duty in that area-on the day on which the person departed from the last port of call in Australia for that service; or (ii) if the person was outside Australia on the day as from which the person was so allotted for duty-on the day as from which the person was so allotted for duty; and- (b) shall be taken to have ended at the expiration of- (i) if the person was allotted for duty from an operational area to another area outside Australia (not being an operational area)-on the day on which the person arrived at that other area or on the day as from which the person was allotted to that other area at a time when the person was in that other area; or (ii) in any other case-on the day on which the person arrived at the first port of call in Australia on returning from operational service.''. (4) Clause 34, page 39, line 14, after ``served'', insert ``on the person''. (5) Clause 35, page 40, lines 21 and 22, omit '', before 1 September 1957,''. (6) Clause 47, page 61, line 41, omit ``dependent'', substitute ``dependant''. (7) Clause 47, page 61, line 42, omit ``dependant on'', substitute ``dependant of''. (8) Clause 47, page 63, line 14, after sub-clause (12) insert the following sub-clause: ``(13) On and after 1 May 1986, paragraph (3) (a) shall be read as if `$520' were omitted and `$624' were substituted.''. (9) Clause 68, pages 87 and 88, omit the definition of ``defence service'' from sub-clause (1), substitute the following definition: `` `defence service' means- (a) continuous full-time service rendered as a member of the Defence Force on or after 7 December 1972 and before the terminating date; and (b) in the case of a person who- (i) was rendering continuous full-time service as a member of the Defence Force immediately before the commencement of this Act; (ii) continued so to render continuous full-time service until and including the day immediately before the terminating date; and (iii) was, immediately before the terminating date, bound to render continuous full-time service as such a member for a term expiring on or after the terminating date, included the continuous full-time service rendered by the person as a member of the Defence Force on and after the terminating date and before- (iv) the expiration of that term or, if that term is deemed to have been extended by sub-section (4), (5) or (6), the expiration of the extension of that term; or (v) the lawful termination of the person's service as a member of the Defence Force otherwise than by reason of the expiration of the term for which the person is bound to serve, whichever occurs first, but does not include any period of peacekeeping service;''. (10) Clause 68, page 89, line 13, after the definition of ``peacekeeping service'' in sub-clause (1) add the following definition: `` `terminating date' means the date fixed by Proclamation for the purpose of this definition, being the date not earlier than the date of commencement of an Act establishing a Military Compensation Scheme.''. (11) Clause 68, page 89, line 34, omit ``the commencement of this Act'', substitute ``the terminating date''. (12) Clause 68, page 89, line 37, omit ``after the commencement of this Act'', substitute ``on or after the terminating date''. (13) Clause 68, page 90, lines 3 and 4, omit ``the commencement of this Act'', substitute ``the terminating date''. (14) Clause 68, page 90, line 5, omit ``after the commencement of this Act'', substitute ``on or after the terminating date''. (15) Clause 68, page 90, line 17, omit ``the commencement of this Act'', substitute ``the terminating date''. (16) Clause 68, page 90, line 20, omit ``after the commencement of this Act'', substitute ``on or after the terminating date''. (17) Clause 68, page 90, line 33, add the following sub-clause: ``(7) Sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) do not apply to a person who was bound to render continuous full-time service as a member of the Defence Force immediately before the terminating date unless the person- (a) was so rendering continuous full-time service immediately before the commencement of this Act; and (b) continued so to render continuous full-time service until and including the day immediately before the terminating date.''. (18) Clause 69. page 90, line 35, omit ``Subject to sub-section (2)'', substitute ``Subject to this section''. (19) Clause 69, page 90, line 38, omit ``the commencement of this Act'', substitute ``the terminmating date''. (20) Clause 69, page 91, lines 1 and 2, omit paragraph (b), substitute the following paragraph: ``(b) is serving in the Defence Force on or after the terminating date and has so served continuously since a date before that date,''. (21) Clause 69, page 91, line 6, omit ``, being service that ended''. (22) Clause 69, page 92, line 8, add at the end of sub-clause (2) ``unless, under sub-section (1), this Part would apply to the person by reason only of his or her having rendered that further period of service.''. (23) Clause 69, page 92, line 8, after sub-clause (2), insert the following sub-clause: ``(2a) Where a person renders continuous full-time service as a member of the Defence Force at some time after the commencement of this Act and before the terminating date but has not so rendered continuous full-time service continuously from and including the day immediately before the date of commencement of this Act to that time, sub-section (1) does not apply in respect of the person unless- (a) the person completes 3 years' effective full-time service as such a member before the terminating date; or (b) the person's service as a member or officer of the Defence Force is terminated as provided by paragraph (1) (d) or (e), whichever is applicable, before the terminating date.''. (24) Clause 84, page 111, lines 28 to 35, omit sub-clauses (6) and (7), substitute the following sub-clauses: ``(6) Subject to section 93, where a person, other than a person included in a prescribed class of persons, is provided with treatment under section 87 or 88, the person is liable to pay to the Commonwealth in respect of that treatment- (a) unless paragraph (b) applies-charges in accordance with a scale of charges determined by the Commission, by instrument in writing, being charges based on charges payable for treatment as private patients in public hospitals in Ausstralia; or (b) if the person is not ordinarily resident in Australia-the cost (as determined by the Commission by instrument in writing) of and incidental to that treatment.''. (25) Clause 102, page 130, line 22, after sub-paragraph (5) (a) (i), insert the following sub-paragraphs: ``(ia) the Cross of Valour; (ib) the Star of Courage;''. (26) Clause 105, page 132, line 18, after sub-clause (3), insert the following sub-clause: ``(3a) Where a scheme prepared by the Commission in accordance with sub-section (1), or an instrument under sub-section (2), has been approved by the Minister, the Commission shall furnish copies of the scheme or instrument to the Minister, and the Minister shall cause copies to be laid before each House of Parliament within 5 sitting day of the House after the Minister received those copies.''. (27) Clause 110, page 139, line 32, omit ``as the Commission determines'', substitute ``as are prescribed''. (28) Clause 110, page 139, line 34, omit ``as the Commission determines'', substitute ``as are prescribed''. (29) Clause 114, page 142, line 40, after clause 114, insert the following new clause in part VI: Review of decision, &c. ``114a (1) Subject to sub-section (2), a person who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Commission in respect of an application for- (a) Clothing allowance; (b) funeral benefits under section 99, 100 or 101; (c) decoration allowance; (d) Victoria Cross Allowance; (e) recreation transport allowance; (f) temporary incapacity allowance; or (g) loss of earnings allowance, may request the Commission, in writing, to review the decision, and, where such a request is duly made, the Commission shall review the decision, or cause the decision to be reviewed by a person to whom the Commission has delegated its powers under this section (not being the person who made the decision). ``(2) A request under sub-section (1) to review a decision of the Commission shall set out particulars of the grounds on which the request is made, and may be made within 3 months after service on the person to whom the decision relates of notice of the decision, but not otherwise. ``(3) Where the Commission reviews a decision under sub-section (1), the Commission may affirm or set aside the decision and, if it sets aside the decision, it shall make such other decision as it considers to be in accordance with this Act. ``(4) Where the Commission makes a decision, in substitution for the decision set aside, granting an application for an allowance specified in sub-section (1), it may approve payment of the allowance as from a date not earlier than the date as from which the Commission could have approved payment of the allowance if it had made the substituted decision in place of the original decision. (5) Sections 60 and 62 apply to a review under this section in like manner as they apply to a review under section 59 and, for the purpose of their application to a review under this section- (a) references in section 60 and 62 to section 59 shall be read as references to this section; and (b) references in section 60 to a review shall be read as references to a review under sub-section (1) of this section. ``(6) A reference in sub-section (1) to a decision in respect of an application for funeral benefits under section 99 shall be read as not including a reference to a decision of the Commission to grant, or refuse to grant, an approval of a kind referred to in paragraph 99 (3) (a), (b), (c) or (d).''. (30) Clause 116, page 144, line 3, after sub-clause (3), insert the following sub-clause: ``(3a) Where a scheme prepared by the Commission in accordance with sub-section (1), or an instrument under sub-section (2), has been approved by the Minister, the Commision shall furnish copies of the scheme or instrument to the Minister, and the Minister shall cause copies to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister received those copies.''. (31) Clause 127, page 152, line 13, omit ``within the period and in the manner'', substitute ``within a reasonable period and in a reasonable manner''. (32) Clause 127, page 152, line 17, omit ``within the period and in the manner'', substitute ``within a reasonable period and in a reasonable manner''. (33) Clause 127, page 152, line 21, omit ``on a date, and at a time and place'', substitute ``on a reasonable date and at a reasonable time and place''. (34) Clause 131, page 153, line 23, omit ``as the Commission determines'', substitute ``as are prescribed''. (35) Clause 131, page 153, line 36, omit ``as the Commission determines'', substitute ``as are prescribed''. (36) Clause 131, page 153, line 41, omit ``as the Commission considers reasonable'', substitute ``as are prescribed''. (37) Clause 131, page 154, line 1, omit ``as the Commission determines'', substitute ``as are prescribed''. (38) Clause 131, page 154, line 6, omit ``as the Commission determines'', substitute ``as are prescribed''. (39) Clause 131, page 154, lines 10 and 11, omit ``as the Commission considers reasonable'', substitute ``as are prescribed''. (40) Clause 131, page 154, line 12, omit ``as the Commission determines'', substitute ``as are prescribed''. (41) Clause 131, page 154, line 16, omit ``as the Commission determines'', substitute ``as are prescribed''. (42) Clause 131, page 154, lines 19 and 20, omit ``as the Commission considers reasonable'', substitute ``as are prescribed''. (43) Clause 131, page 154, line 21, omit ``as the Commission determines'', substitute ``as are prescribed''. (44) Clause 131, page 154, line 31, omit ``as the Commission determines'', substitute ``as are prescribed''. (45) Clause 131, page 154, lines 35 and 36, omit ``as the Commission considers reasonable'', substitute ``as are prescribed''. (46) Clause 131, page 155, line 10, omit ``as the Commission determines'', substitute ``as are prescribed''. (47) Clause 131, page 155, line 32, omit ``tha'', substitute ``that''. (48) Clause 131, page 155, line 36, after ``59'', insert ``, 114A''. (49) Clause 174, page 175, line 9, after sub-clause (3) add the following sub-clause: ``(4) Where the Commission, under section 114A, affirms a decision of the Commission in respect of an application for an allowance or benefit referred to in sub-section 114A (1), or sets aside such a decision and substitutes another decision for it, then, subject to section 29 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review- (a) of the decision so affirmed; or (b) of the decision made by the Commission under section 114A in substitution for the decision so set aside.''. (50) Clause 176, page 177, line 42, after sub-clause (5) add the following sub-clause: ``(6) Where the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, upon application under sub-section 174 (4) for a review of a decision made by the Commission with respect to an application for an allowance under section 97, 102, 103 and 104, grants the allowance referred to in that section, or increases the rate at which the allowance so referred to is to be paid, the Tribunal may approve payment of the allowance, or of the alowance at the increased rate, as the case may be- (a) if the application was made within 3 months after service on the applicant of a document setting out the terms of that decision-from a date not earlier than the earliest date as from which the Commission could, if it had not made that decision, have approved payment of the allowance, or payment of the allowance at the increased rate, as the case may be; or (b) in any other case-from the date on which the application under sub-section 174 (4) was made.''. (51) Clause 206, pages 198 and 199, omit the clause. (52) Clause 208, page 200, line 42, omit ``make'', substitute ``knowingly make''. (53) Clause 208, page 201. line 8, omit ``obtain'', substitute ``knowingly obtain''. (54) Clause 208, page 210, line 11, omit ``obtain'', substitute ``knowingly obtain''. (55) Clause 208, page 210, line 15, omit ``obtain'', substitute ``knowingly obtain''. (56) Clause 208, page 201, line 18, omit ``make'', substitute ``knowingly make''. (57) Clause 215, page 204, line 17, omit ``this section'', substitute ``sub-section (1)''. (58) Clause 215, page 204, lines 20 and 21, omit ``4 December 1985'', substitute ``the day immediately preceding the date fixed under section 2''. (59) Clause 215, page 204, line 23, omit ''5 December 1985'', substitute ``the date fixed under section 2''. (60) Clause 215, page 204, line 23, after sub-clause (3) add the following sub-clause: ``(4) The Principal Member of the Board shall, as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, prepare and furnish to Minister a report on the operations of the Board during the year that ended on that 30 June. ``(5) The Minister shall cause a copy of a report furnished to the Minister under sub-section (4) to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the Minister receives the report. ``(6) The first report to be prepared and furnished to the Minister under sub-section (4) shall be a report on the operations of the Board- (a) under the Repatriation Act 1920 in respect of the period that commenced on 1 July 1985 and ended on the day immediately preceding the date fixed under section 2; and (b) under this Act in respect of the period that commenced on the date fixed under section 2 and ends on 30 June 1986.''. Consideration resumed from 11 February. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(5.38) —I move: That the amendments recommended by His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to. Honourable members will recall that the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985 was passed by the Parliament last year but did not receive royal assent. When Parliament did not pass the Veterans' Entitlements Bill, the Governor-General returned this Bill to the House of Representatives with a message recommending certain consequential amendments. These amendments, which are of a purely technical nature, will change clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill to omit the commencing date of 5 December 1985 and to provide for the Act to commence on a date fixed by proclamation. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(5.39) —The Opposition has no objection to this procedural measure, which flows from the delay in the passage of this legislation. As the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) says, it is a technical measure consequent upon the other decisions relating to this very important legislation. Therefore, the Opposition is not of a mind to delay the progress of this measure. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Bill presented by Mr Holding, and read a first time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(5.40) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The delay in the enactment of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill and the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill has necessitated the making of amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill. Consequential amendments are now required, in particular in relation to the date of application of particular provisions of the new legislation. While the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill is still before the Parliament, it is only possible to alter that Bill, in conformity with the Governor-General's message, to deal with the date of its commencement. It has been necessary, therefore, to introduce this separate Bill to deal with other required amendments. Clause 3 of the Bill gives effect to the Government's undertaking that the dependants of incapacitated veterans who, prior to 6 June 1985, were receiving a pension in respect of that incapacity would have the option of commuting their fortnightly payments to a once-only lump sum representing three years' instalments. The Bill gives a period of six months from the commencement date to make an election to commute. This amendment maintains the six-month period of election. Clause 5 will make a new provision in respect of the application of the Guide to the Assessment of Rates of Veterans' Pensions to decisions assessing the rate of pension payable to a veteran made after the commencement of the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Under clause 5, the Repatriation Commission will be bound to use the guide in all assessment cases determined after 1 November 1986. However, it may be used before that date if sufficient information is available to enable its use. The Commission will be required to state in its decision that the guide was used in a particular case. Where the guide has been applied by the Repatriation Commission, the Veterans' Review Board and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal must apply the guide when conducting a review of an assessment determination. Under clause 7 similar amendments will be made to the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940. Clause 4 of the Bill will extend the time for lodging an application for review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, in respect of a Veterans' Review Board entitlement decision, to three months after the commencement of the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill. This provision will give effect to a Government undertaking to provide for appeals, under the VEB, against decisions made since 6 June 1985 on the amended standard of proof. The provision is necessary because, in many cases, the three-month appeal period under the Repatriation Act will have expired. The Government's undertaking on provision of rights of review also related to applications for review of decisions from the first level of the repatriation determining system, that is, from the Repatriation Commission to the Veterans' Review Board. However, no legislative action is required as, at the date of commencement, there will be in all cases an unexpired portion of the 12 month period already prescribed for the lodgment of applications for review to the Veterans' Review Board. The Bill will also make further amendments to the Public Service Act 1922 and the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 consequential on the amendment of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill to enable Defence Force personnel to be deemed to have been allotted for service by instrument in writing issued by the Minister for Defence. This Bill also makes amendments to the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940 to parallel those the Government will be moving to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill arising from the report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum on this Bill. Leave granted for second reading debate to continue forthwith. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(5.45) —The Opposition has agreed to facilitate the passage of the Veterans' Entitlements (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Amendment Bill 1986 in the knowledge that the Bill embraces some of the amendments that could not be more properly put into Schedule C because of the provisions of the Standing Orders and other parliamentary requirements and also in the knowledge that we have just had a reasonably useful debate on the whole issue relating to the veterans legislation. Whilst we have agreed to this, I make it very clear that it is nevertheless an unusual circumstance to have a Bill that has been formally presented to the Parliament only a few moments ago pass through all its stages forthwith. We by no means want it to become in any way a common practice that we allow such fast timing for legislation. It is just that this Bill falls within the category of an extension of matters by and large dealt with elsewhere in the veterans legislative package. That is why we have co-operated, and also in the knowledge that a large body of opinion in the veteran community and beyond seeks the passage of this legislation without any further delay but in an acceptable form. This transitional additional Bill, if I may call it that by that term, beds down a number of the Senate amendments and also adjusts a number of the dates, as explained by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), to preserve the six-month period and other periods associated with the legislation. It does in fact correct a ministerial error made last year in the Senate when the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) allowed the transitional Bill consequent upon the Veterans' Entitlements Bill to pass the Senate before the major piece of legislation to which the Bill related had passed through the Senate and the Parliament. We had the hilarious but sad situation that the transitional Bill was at Government House awaiting the signature of the Governor-General when in fact the main Bill, the Veterans' Entitlements Bill, was still jammed between the House of Representatives and the Senate because of the quite proper stand that we were taking on our amendments. I mention that because a number of errors were made, a number of drafting errors, associated with this legislation. I guess that in one sense this reflects the very complex and huge body of legislation that it represents. It is many years since the original legislation was initiated under the previous coalition Government in a bid to clean up, consolidate and streamline repatriation legislation in this country. It is just a tragedy that along the path many other things were attached to the legislation and attempted under the guise of the veterans legislation. I wish to deal with two particular areas of the legislation. I mention at the outset that the coalition is not opposed to the legislation because it continues a process of bedding down the amendments moved elsewhere last year to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. The two areas to which I wish to refer are the provisions under the Bill relating to the Guide to the Assessment of Rates of Veterans' Pensions. There is considerable concern that the circumstances surrounding the totally and permanently incapacitated pension entitlement have been tightened up a great deal more than the Government has highlighted or admitted in discussions and deliberations with veteran organisations. The altered criteria for a TPI pension, as included in the mini-Budget legislation and confirmed in this legislative package for veterans, are dangerous and devastating for thousands of veterans who had an expectation of eligibility for a TPI pension but who will not now be eligible. The Veterans' Entitlements Bill laid down three additional criteria for the granting of the special rate of pension. The first is that there is in force in respect of a veteran a determination of 100 per cent disability. The other two state: (a) the veteran is totally and permanently incapacitated, that is to say, the veteran's incapacity from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, is of such a nature as, of itself alone, to render the veteran incapable of undertaking remunerative work for periods aggregating more than 8 hours per week; and (b) the veteran, is by reason of incapacity from that war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, alone, prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work that the veteran was undertaking and is, by reason thereof, suffering a loss of salary or wages, or of earnings on his or her own account, that the veteran would not be suffering if the veteran were free of that incapacity. As a consequence of that and other provisions under clause 24, special rate of pension, of the Veterans' Entitlements Bill, partly referred to in this transitional additional Bill-albeit in a part relating to Australian mariners, so I will not dwell on that-the TPI criteria have been savagely tightened up in this country. The expectation of being granted a TPI pension, especially for those on the point of retirement, has been blocked by the Hawke Labor Government. Veterans who retire and who suffer a sudden deterioration in their health which is war related will now not be eligible for a TPI pension. I know that this is of concern to the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) and many others, including especially the Victorian division of the Returned Services League. Not only is that the position, but also the explanatory memorandum did not include a paragraph referring to parts of the provisions of the special rate of pension. Under Standing Orders it is not possible to dwell at length on this matter because this is a traditional transitional additional Bill the House is addressing. I will leave it at that, except to say that the Government is on notice in relation to its changes to TPI criteria. The guide to assessment has to come before both Houses of Parliament and the coalition will be examining it in detail, along with the development of a policy which effectively addresses the area of the retired veteran. The veteran who served his country in time of war is entitled to a quality of life during his work phase, with the compensation associated with that service, as well as during his retirement phase. Finally I turn to another area of the Schedule to the veterans' transitional additional Bill. In particular I refer to the Defence Service Homes Act section. I remind the House that on 14 May 1985 the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced sotto voce that the Defence Service Homes Corporation would be transferred to the private sector. In other words, the Defence Service Homes Corporation was going to be privatised by this Labor Government. There was a stunning silence for about nine months until eventually, in February, the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) decided that it was getting a bit embarrassing and he announced that tenders were being called for the privatising of the Corporation. There has been another stunning silence for two months. We have a waited with bated breath the detailed tendering information indicating when this Government will implement its new scheme on the Defence Service Homes Corporation. Veterans are concerned. Leaving aside the question of the macro-interest rates associated with housing-this has been very capably covered by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) and others in recent times-let me deal with the interest rate the Government will apply to defence service home loans under the new scheme because that piece of information has not yet been forthcoming in the House or the Senate. We wait with bated breath to see whether an effective interest rate increase will be implemented on the first $25,000 associated with defence service home loans. We also await with bated breath the new legislation in respect of defence service homes referred to in part in the transitional additional Bill before the House. This is a real entitlement for veterans; it is a one-off entitlement and we do not accept the right of a government to limit it in any way. To be fair, I do not think that is in the Government's proposals, but we will study them in a great deal of detail to ensure that that is so. Mr Beale —Where will the cost saving of $120m come from? Mr TIM FISCHER —The honourable member for Deakin quite properly highlights a figure which has been floating around but has yet to be bedded down due to delays the Government has had in implementing its new defence service home loans scheme and legislation. Through this measure before the House the Government is saying: `We are now extending repatriation cover to those who served on HMAS Sydney and other support ships between Australia and Vietnam, but in addition'-I approve of what the Government is doing-`we are now giving those people access to defence service home loans'. That is a breakthrough and it is appreciated. HMAS Sydney brought me from Vietnam to Australia in three weeks. I must admit that it cost me a lot of money when I challenged the crew on HMAS Sydney to play bridge. It almost bankrupted me and my savings from my 12 months in Vietnam. I fully accept the entitlement of this logistical support group to repatriation cover. That is part of this veterans legislative package. The Government has now picked up an error it made and is extending another aspect of repatriation cover eligibility, that is, the defence service home loan grant benefit, to those people who were on support ships. The only other question which remains, and there has been no indication from the Government about it, is whether there will be retrospective recognition in relation to the medals associated with service. Under the previous Government, the Australian Service Medal and another medal were given for service in Vietnam. The Minister may have some information to make available to the House in respect of that matter. Alternatively, the information might be made available when this measure comes before the Senate later this week. Vietnam was raised in the debate on the principal veterans legislation and this Bill refers to our commitment to Vietnam. I have no apology to make for my own commitment and that of the thousands of Australian soldiers who went to Vietnam on behalf of their country. I am sick of hearing people denigrate in any way the commitment of that fighting force. The previous Government was criticised for not moving quickly to establish a royal commission. It is now a matter of record that that royal commission, when it was established, came down with a report that the Vietnam Veterans Association has found most inadequate. The Association has produced a document which attacks the report in some detail. In retrospect, there are many in the Vietnam Veterans Association who found that royal commission exercise very much wanting. In that lies in part the explanation for the attitude of the previous Government to the appointment of the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam. Nevertheless, that is a separate issue and I will not pursue it further, other than to say that the measure currently before the House is the final part of the whole veterans legislative package. The coalition is determined to see that the veteran gets an absolutely fair deal in recognition of the commitment he gave to his country. The Opposition is not opposed to this measure but it reiterates its strong stand on the veterans legislative package as outlined previously in the debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding) read a third time. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(6.00) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Refurbishment of taxation building, Brisbane. The Department of Local Government and Administrative Services proposes to refurbish the existing taxation building at 320 Adelaide Street, Brisbane. The building comprises 13 levels, including a basement carpark and service area. It was constructed in 1960 to accommodate government departments, with the principal occupant being the Australian Taxation Office. The building is of concrete encased, steel-framed construction with reinforced concrete floor and the structure is in good condition. While meeting the fire, construction and office accommodation standards of the day, the building is now deficient by current standards. As the building is to continue to be used for office accommodation, it should be updated and refurbished to meet, as far as is possible, modern standards for safety and office efficiency. Floors 6, 8 and 10 were refurbished during the past few years at a total cost of $546,000. The current proposal is to refurbish the ground floor and floors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 11. It is proposed to refurbish the lifts, which are in poor condition and a source of continuing user complaint, and to install fire sprinklers to all floors. The proposal does not include allowance for furnishings, window treatment or external maintenance. Subject to a favourable report by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and approval by the Parliament to proceed, it is proposed that work on lift refurbishment commence in June 1986. The current estimated cost of the proposed work is $7.21m at March 1986. Projected to May 1986, when tenders are scheduled to be called for the lift component of this project, it is estimated that the cost will be in the order of $7.35m. I table plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(6.04) —I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making information available to me. The Opposition wants to canvass with the Minister and the Government whether now is an appropriate time to be spending $7m on the refurbishment of a tax office. I remind the House that this proposal does not include allowance for furnishings, window treatment or external maintenance. The Government has been running a very tight monetary policy for the past year or so that has had the result of keeping interest rates at almost record high real levels. This policy has been killing the housing industry and putting some form of cap on the construction industry work from the private sector. If the Government is to prevent Australia from falling into a recession, it must take some steps to get interest rates down. It can do that only by relying less heavily on monetary policy and more heavily on fiscal and wages policies. Let me explain to the Minister that by spending less the Government will have to borrow less. When a commodity is borrowed less, its price, in this case, interest rates, will come down. If the Government introduces more flexibility into the labour market it will make us more competitive internationally. When it does that we will have to borrow less from abroad. We have seen that the Government's economic policy continues to be of great concern with the news today that our balance of payments- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable gentleman is being tenuously relevant to the referral. The question of the Government's economic policy would be more properly addressed at a more appropriate time. The question before the House is the referral of this proposal to the Public Works Committee. I invite the honourable member to address himself essentially to it. Mr BEALE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. With respect, we are now talking about whether the funds to be spent on this refurbishment job are appropriate, given the Government's macroeconomic policies. Mr West —That is why I am referring it to the Committee to make a recommendation to the House. Mr BEALE —Is the Government prepared to allow the Committee to make a judgment on whether it should be spending this money? We know that the Government is in trouble with its spending. There has been a great deal in the Press over the weekend about the difficulties the Government is having in bringing its expenditure under control. The spending review committee of Cabinet does not seem to be able to deal with this matter. The Minister is one of the gang of seven that has told the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that Government spending on works such as this tax office refurbishment- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member cannot be directly relevant to the question before the House, I will have to require him to resume his seat. Mr BEALE —In all the circumstances, Mr Deputy Speaker, and given the difficulty with Government expenditure, we now urge the Minister to invite the Public Works Committee to decide whether this expenditure is appropriate. We also would be grateful if, in the Minister's brief to the Committee, he enjoined the Committee to ensure that its deliberations result in most of the work involved in this refurbishment being done by the private sector. In other respects we do not oppose the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(6.06) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of New Resource Management Centre, St Leonards, New South Wales. The proposal is to construct a new resources management centre at St Leonards for Telecom Australia. The centre will comprise four buildings, two operations buildings, an engineering services building and a support building to provide accommodation for operational management support facilities. The two operations buildings are each of two storeys and house equipment areas and associated engineering services. The engineering services building is of three storeys and contains the centralised engineering services. The support building is of two storeys and houses a paper store, equipment room, security control centre, offices and staff amenities. The facility is to be completed in stages. The first stage, targeted for mid-1987 completion, comprises sufficient building works and services to enable the operation of 1,600 square metres of equipment space and the support building together with engineering services and staff areas. Equipment areas will then be sequentially fitted out in stages to completion in December 1989. To minimise site disruption, the carcass of operations building No. 2 is scheduled for completion in February 1988. I refer to a comment made by the shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), during debate on the last motion regarding the need for work to be farmed out to the private sector. Of course that is the policy of the Government and the Department of Housing and Construction. Virtually all government construction work that is contracted out through either conventional or project management delivery systems is picked up by firms in the private sector. It is quite obvious that the honourable member for Deakin has no concept whatsoever of the way the Department of Housing and Construction works with regard to its clients such as Telecom Australia, other government instrumentalities or departments. He has no idea as to the way it goes through the tendering system or of the way firms in the private sector bid for either the total construction job or various components of the job, as with this particular project. The limit of cost estimate of the proposed work is, all up, $86m at February 1986 prices. I table plans of the proposed works and commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(6.10) —I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making the information available to the Opposition. Mr Deputy Speaker, your guidance during the debate on the previous motion really precludes the necessity of my saying yet again that the Government's macroeconomic policy is failing and the Government needs to bring its expenditure under control and introduce more flexibility to the labour market. Time and again when dealing with such matters I have referred to the need to involve the private sector in the engineering, drafting, architectural and supervisory work that is carried out in the planning stage by the Department of Housing and Construction. Almost 4,000 people employed by the Department doing this sort of work could equally well be employed by the private sector. I understand very well that all the construction work is necessarily carried out by the private sector. I say yet again to the Minister that he should encourage the Joint Committee on Public Works to ensure that engineering, drafting, architectural and supervisory work is carried out by the private sector. The Opposition does not oppose the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 19 March, on motion by Mr Scholes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day, the Australian Capital Territory Council Bill, concurrently with order of the day No. 4, the Australian Capital Territory Council (Consequential Provisions) Bill. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(6.12) —The Opposition will oppose the Australian Capital Territory Council Bill. We will vote against it for reasons which I will explain. People of the Australian Capital Territory are being asked to take the Bill on trust. There are no detailed financial arrangements and no audited municipal accounts. The Commonwealth Grants Commission has yet to present its second report and the National Capital Development Commission Amendment Bill, which is an essential ingredient in the total package, has yet to see the light of day. The people of the Australian Capital Territory are being offered Hobson's choice; that is, a chairperson plus 12 part time councillors and an inherited and bloated bureaucracy or a Minister and a bloated bureaucracy. The strength of the Department of Territories has increased from about 3,800 to about 5,500. That is an additional 1,700 at a time when we are looking for reductions in the number of public servants. The Department is advertising for two new deputy secretary positions at $66,000 per annum each, two first assistant secretaries at $61,700 each, three assistant secretaries at $52,400 each and four assistant secretaries at $47,700 each. The salaries of that little package total $604,000 for 11 extra people. It has been reported that ultimately the reorganisation will see more than 9,000 government employees in the Territory's portfolio. An integrated and rationalised Department of Territories should have reduced the size of the administration significantly, but the reverse appears to be the case. Certainly the Minister can argue that the Department is providing a bit more than does local government and it may be unfair to make comparisons with local government elsewhere. But the difference between ratios of one council employee to every 45 people in Canberra-that is, 5,500 employees-and one council employee to every 148 people in Newcastle and one council employee to every 162 in the Geelong municipality- Mrs Kelly —Do you want to cut out the staff? Mr WHITE —As the honourable member for Canberra rightly points out, it is a very lopsided ratio. The Minister for Territories is reported in the Canberra Times of 9 April to have said: The financial aspects of self-government will be satisfactory for both the residents of the ACT and the Commonwealth Government and hence the taxpayers. He goes on: The need to rationalise ACT finances and to ensure that the ACT community make a reasonable contribution to local services through local taxation must be addressed. The question that must be asked is: What is reasonable? I would not think that it is reasonable to have the sort of empire building to which I have just referred. The Bill reflects the anti- pathy of this Government, particularly the Australian Labor Party Caucus, towards the people of Canberra. We seriously doubt whether the Government is serious about the Bill. It has all the hallmarks of a half-hearted effort. On the Minister's admission, the Bill has been emasculated by Cabinet over 12 months. The Minister has said: . . . that it had taken about 12 months to be refined to a form acceptable to Cabinet. He went on to say: If I had wanted to drop it, I could have dropped it half-way through the Cabinet run without losing much face. The real architects of this defective Bill are the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the numbers men on the right of the ALP who have pointed out to the Prime Minister that a new Territory with full self-government would mean additional numbers from the Australian Capital Territory at the next ALP National Conference. We all know that the left wing dominates the ALP in the Australian Capital Territory. The honourable member for Canberra would know that better than anyone. It would mean additional left wing votes at the conference. That was the Prime Minister's real fear about his electoral promise of self-government for the ACT. That is why the Bill falls so short, because it limits left wing representation at the National Conference. Until 7 April the Minister said that the proposals had been offered as a total package and were not open to compromise. He also said that the package was not negotiable in any respect. On 7 April-the same day-he acknowledged that the package was defective in many respects. He conceded that amendments, other than those to the electoral system would be considered. Clearly, he is looking for amendments to increase the number of members and make them full time. The Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia will not be pushed into increasing the cost of this measure. At the same time, on the issue of 13 single-member electorates, the Minister said that Cabinet had an entrenched position. On the basic defect of this proposal, the Government is not prepared to negotiate. The Liberal and National parties have made it clear that they oppose the proposition of 13 single-member electorates for the Australian Capital Territory Council. That proposition would wipe out the minor parties and probably guarantee ALP dominance. It should be pointed out that if Tasmania had not had the Hare-Clark electoral system for its recent election there would have been 35 Liberals elected for a Parliament of 35. What sort of Parliament would that have been? If quoted correctly, the Minister said: I think sometimes it's a good idea to get a start in a race before you try to work out what position you'll be in at the finish post. That just about sums up this legislation. It has not been thought through properly. Apart from the legislation, we are asked to take essential ingredients on trust from a Government and Prime Minister that are not exactly noted for keeping promises. It would be fair to say quite the reverse-they have become notorious for breaking their promises. Let us look at the financial arrangements. They are not set in concrete and are not even detailed. The Government has said it will continue funding at present levels for two years, with no account for the rundown state of some of the functions being transferred or pre-transfer staff increases in other areas. What sort of financial arrangement is that? Let me give two examples: firstly, the Vinson report of the review of Australian Capital Territory Health and Welfare Services was critical of the duplication between the departments of Health and Territories in the welfare field, and although these two departments are not being integrated, Territories is currently calling for an expansion of 19 social welfare workers. How is that to be funded? Secondly, ACTION buses and garbage trucks are reported to have been run down to the stage where an extensive replacement program must be undertaken in the near future. Again we ask: Who will foot that bill? There are no audited municipal accounts and, while this Government has initiated an integrated budget process to set priorities and allocate resources, those accounts have yet to see the light of day. The Auditor-General's report for March 1986, at page 130, is most critical of Department of Territories accounting, as was the Joint Committee of Public Accounts which `expressed extreme concern at the poor performance of the Department of Territories in the preparation of the accounts for which it is responsible'. It stated that it expected the Department to improve the timeliness and accuracy of its financial statements. A further review of the situation towards the end of 1985 revealed that the position remains one of concern and there have been significant slippages and that audit disclosed a number of unsatisfactory features. The Commonwealth Grants Commission has yet to conclude its inquiry into the financing of Government services in the Australian Capital Territory for 1985-86 and indeed has expressed some reservations concerning the usefulness of the exercise. There has been no proper consultative process with the people of the Australian Capital Territory concerning this proposed legislation. The people are being offered no real choice. They can take it or be ruled by ministerial decree. The Minister has said there will be no negotiations, although he has backed down from that statement. The Government is putting the cart before the horse. The Minister claims: . . . the Government's proposals will ensure that the Australian Capital Territory has an effective voice in negotiations on future financial arrangements . . . It is only through such a process of negotiation that fairness and equity in Australian Capital Territory financial arrangements can be achieved. That is precisely what he should have done. He should have used the House of Assembly in the process of negotiation and the detailed financial arrangements should have been part of this package. Instead, he has adopted a unique solution. He seeks a `Kellymander' which would provide a subservient Australian Labor Party-dominated council which will have no choice but to agree to whatever financial arrangements the Government proposes. The second essential ingredient we are asked to take on trust from this Government is the proposed new National Capital Development Commission Amendment Bill, which is an essential part of the total package but which has yet to see the light of day. While the Minister has broadly outlined its proposed function and indicated one of its most important functions will be `land development and marketing . . . on a commercial basis', again there are no details. Without the NCDC legislation before us we are being asked to accept a bucket of worms. The unseemly haste with which the Government is pressing ahead with this legislation suggests that it may be a very costly bucket of worms. The legislation introduces a form of government that has no counterpart in Australia, embracing some segments of both second and third tier government-an untried system which from the start would be dominated by an inherited and inflated bureaucracy which might prove quite inappropriate to the task. Nowhere does the Bill address the cost effectiveness of the proposal, nor does it address the problems associated with union power in the Australian Capital Territory. It is described in a Canberra Times editorial as `an insulting imposition', with the most serious weakness being a structural one. The Canberra Times states: The Government, simply, is not giving the people of the ACT a system of responsible, representative and accountable government. The editorial goes on to suggest the legislation is almost designed to fail, as though the Government wants it to fail. There is equally widespread and adverse criticism from such diverse organisations as the Australian Capital Territory Council of Social Service, the Canberra Association for Regional Development, the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly and the Chamber of Commerce. Mrs Kelly —But they don't support your stand. Mr WHITE —So they are all wrong, are they? The Opposition parties recognise that they cannot take over the Bill and, accordingly, will not attempt to redraft it. As far as we are concerned, the Government will remain stuck with this Bill. This proposal would wipe out the minority parties and put the administration of the Australian Capital Territory further into the grip of the radical left wing. Finally, I again refer to that other major defect, namely-that this Parliament is unable to consider the terms of the new National Capital Development Commission Amendment Bill at the same time as we look at the terms of the Australian Capital Territory Council Bill. By itself, that would be sufficient reason for deferring debate on this measure. The Minister in his second reading speech acknowledges that the new National Capital Development Commission Amendment Bill is an integral part of the Government's package for the administration of the Australian Capital Territory, but we cannot see that Bill yet. The Liberal and National parties believe that the people of the Australian Capital Territory have a right and a responsibility for the financial and administrative management of their local affairs. In achieving that ambition, however, we believe that they are entitled to far more consideration than this Government is prepared to give them. To further debate the defects in the Bill in these circumstances would serve no useful purpose. In conclusion, I simply note that the comments and criticisms that the opposition is making are not entirely unsupported when we look at the range of opinion that has been evident in the media and elsewhere in recent weeks. As I have said, the Canberra Times, in its editorial under the heading `An insulting imposition', stated: The Government, simply, is not giving the people of the ACT a system of responsible, representative and accountable government . . . Such a half-hearted system seems almost designed to fail. I have a list of some 33 criticisms culled from the local media-33 separate points on which they criticise the Bill. The House of Assembly, in a resolution of its second assembly on 24 March recommends, lo and behold, in paragraph 3 (b), multi-member electorates. Finally, in an editorial headed `Voting plan is wrong' the Canberra Times on Thursday, 10 April states: The arguments advanced by the Minister for Territories, Mr Scholes, in favour of single-member electorates for the new ACT Council are quite unconvincing and deserve to be rejected . . .The Government's proposal for 13 single-member electorates is guaranteed to form a party house . . . which is inevitably heavily dominated by Labor . . . The Northern Territory was given real self-government, not the pathetic quasi-local government which Cabinet proposes for the ACT. Mrs Kelly —Is that your view? Mr WHITE —That is the view of the Canberra Times. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(8.00) —It is unfortunate that the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) ran out of time. I wish he could have been given more time because I am sure he would have managed to increase my majority in Canberra with the very informed discussion with which he led for the Opposition on this topic. I am very pleased, Madam Speaker, that you are in the chair for this debate because I know that you take a great interest in the Australian Capital Territory and in the responsibility this Parliament still holds for Canberra. Before I discuss the details of the Australian Capital Territory Council Bill and comment upon it, I point out how pleased and privileged I am to be speaking in support of this legislation. I was first elected as a public officer holder for the Australian Labor Party in 1974 to the then House of Assembly. Labor was in government in those days and new members of the Assembly were promised that during the life of that Assembly we would get self-government. Well, here we are 12 years later still debating the issue of self-government. Mr White —This is not self-government. Mrs KELLY —The Government has presented what I believe is a viable self-government package, but the honourable member for McPherson interjects that this is not self-government. I do not wish to be condescending in this debate, but I have been elected by the people of Canberra and I think that this legislation is a very good compromise package. Mr White —Compromise, yes. Mrs KELLY —It is a compromise package. I shall not take issue with the honourable member on that point, but I shall seek to explain why it is the sort of package it is. It is a compromise because the people of Canberra, in my judgment and that of the Labor Government, did not want to get complete self-government overnight. We have presented to them a viable package that will work and in a very short time will bring about a further hand-over of powers. The powers we are discussing in this Bill are more than those of a local council. They involve much more than a municipal government. This is close to being a State government but the Commonwealth Government will keep reserve powers. I know that everyone in the House understands the constitutional position of the Australian Capital Territory. We cannot have self-government similar to that in the Northern Territory because the Commonwealth Government will always have reserve powers. It is important that that be enshrined in the legislation and that is the basis of these Bills, but it does not diminish the importance of this legislation, its effectiveness, or the responsibility it gives to the people of Canberra. The Opposition, through its spokesman, the honourable member for McPherson, proposed absolutely nothing for the people of Canberra. All we would do is to go back to the situation we have now where the relevant Minister-no offence to the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), who is now at the table and who is a competent Minister-who does not live in this Territory and is not elected by the people, has ultimate responsibility. We do have an advisory body, the House of Assembly, to advise the Minister, but that is all a farce, a joke. It has no power at all. Instead, we have the National Capital Development Commission, which basically can do whatever it likes in this town. What we try to do in this legislation is to present a way of balancing the Commonwealth responsibility, plus the opportunity for the locally elected people to have a say not only in the management and governance of affairs that affect them but also in the planning of the capital. The Opposition has irresponsibly rejected this proposal out of hand. It has done that for one reason only-because it says: `We cannot win an election where there are single member constituencies'. Every other lower House in Australia, outside of Tasmania, has single member constituencies, but that is not good enough for the Liberals in the Australian Capital Territory. They say: `We cannot win an election like that, so we will pack up and go home'. They say they do not like the proposal because it does not give the Independents or minor parties enough of a say. Has one ever heard that debate before in this chamber? The Liberals are saying: `This proposal is not good enough because it does not help the independents and the Democrats'. What a joke! That is not what they are worried about at all. They are scared because they are not prepared to face the people in an ordinary democratic way. The Liberals then come up with the fantastic new term `Kellymander'. I would have thought that one person one vote in a single member constituency was not unique. I know that my colleagues here think I am fairly old, but I do not go back to 1901, the year this system originated. What a joke to call it a Kellymander. All we are trying to have in the Australian Capital Territory is a system like every other lower House in this country. But then the honourable member for McPherson came up with a real pearl. Like Senator Lewis, he said that if we had a system like the Hare-Clark system we would have an election that the Liberals could win. But then he said that, if Tasmania did not have that kind of system, it would have a situation where it had 35 Liberals. If that is what the people want, with one member constituencies, what is wrong with that? That is the system we introduced in the Northern Territory. The Labor Party introduced a single member constituency arrangement. We have not won there, but we still believe in the principle of one person one vote. Mr White —The Canberra Times seems to support our view. Mrs KELLY —Well, the Canberra Times does not support our view. What a shame! This Government has a bit more integrity than running a government the way the Canberra Times thinks we should run it. We happen to be introducing a system which brings in representative government. (Quorum formed) The honourable member for McPherson has just given me an audience. Before everyone leaves, let me tell honourable members that the argument the honourable member for McPherson has put-and they should all listen to this-is that the Government should forget about the one man or one woman one vote and instead it should bring in the Hare-Clark system. Why? Members of the Opposition are worried about the minor parties and the Independents. Of course, they are not worried about themselves; they are concerned only about the minor parties and the Independents. The truth of the matter is that members of the Opposition are scared to fight an election; they are rejecting the whole proposal of self-government in the Australian Capital Territory because they do not think they can win. They are packing up and going home. They call their Bible, their reference on all this, the Canberra Times and its editor. The day when this Government has to run the country on the policies of the Canberra Times is the day when the Australian Labor Party might as well pack up as a government and go home. I believe that the honourable members who were elected by the people of Canberra can give an assessment of the wishes and the interests of the people of this Territory, but that is not the opportunity that members of the Opposition are going to give to the people of Canberra. What they have decided in their own party room, with very little party discussion, is to not consider the details of this legislation at all-details about who plans the Territory, about how the finances are run, about how much taxes people should pay and what responsibilities they should have in the government of their own Territory; they do not discuss that at all. All they say is that single member constituencies mean that the Liberal Party of Australia cannot win, so they will reject the whole Bill. That is democracy at work! How many people elected by the Territory are there in the Opposition caucus? One. That one person was the only person who had any real and fair dinkum role in representing the people of this Territory. The ordinary people in the streets have not got any say. Opposition members make fun of the Government. They say: `Whom has the Government consulted?' The Government has consulted the people who were actually elected by the people of Canberra, the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) and me. I have been elected as an office holder for the people of this Territory for 12 years and I think I can gauge the feeling of the people of this Territory. The honourable member for McPherson, who is from Queensland, in criticising the Government, could not work out exactly what his position was. On the one hand he said, `Well, we are not supporting it' and then he said: `You are really not serious about it'. He said that the Government is not serious. If that were the case, why the heck do we introduce a Bill into this Parliament? Why do we have all the bureaucrats working on this proposal? Why do I put my neck on the line electorally if we are not serious about it? I think that I can give all honourable members of this House a guarantee that the Labor Government is very serious about this self-government proposal. Sure, it is not going to please every single member of my electorate or the Fraser electorate, but it presents a very sensible and constructive package to bring about a first step towards territorial government. The members of the Opposition would have it rejected outright, and what would we be left with? Once again, we would be left with nothing. I suppose what honourable members opposite are hoping is that they can return to government and cut back the Australian Capital Territory the way they did between 1975 and 1983. They want to come back so that they can use Canberra to complete the fiasco which they created in the days when they were in government. What the Government is trying to do is present a very sensible package. The honourable member for McPherson also said that the Labor Government was presenting this package so that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his mates could try to get more seats in the Australian Labor Party Federal Conference. The honour- able member for McPherson has no understanding at all of how the formula works. Let me assure him that there is no way that the Left of the Labor Party is going to be a rump controlling any new assembly. There is no motivation at all in trying to get any increased representation from the Australian Capital Territory on the Federal Conference, because the other members in Australia would not allow it. Everything is done on the basis of a particular formula and it does not matter whether or not we have self-government; the numbers would not change. So that is a totally irrelevant argument. This proposal before us does reserve certain powers for the Commonwealth. It is a unique type of government. There is no doubt about that. But we happen to be the only national capital in this country. Members of the Opposition say: `We do not like it because it is sort of statehood, but we do not like it also because it is not exactly a municipal government'. It is a unique contribution to the style of government in this country and the reason it is like that is that Canberra is special. It is the national capital where the Commonwealth does have to reserve certain powers. This proposal is not intended to create a copy of State government or of municipal government-it has elements of both, but it is different-and there is nothing about the structures of administration in either State governments or local councils which says that one should be used specially as a model for the Australian Capital Territory. Here we have a great opportunity to design an administrative structure that will be suitable for Canberra going into the twenty-first century rather than copy structures in Australia which were created for the nineteenth century. The Government has proposed quite deliberately that the council administration should start with a single political head and a single Public Service head. In this respect, what is proposed can be compared with some of the attempts of the more advanced local councils to create chief executives who can be put in charge of their administration. It is a unique system, but it is a system that I think is quite proper for the national capital. We have talked in detail about the electoral system, but again what we are trying to do here is purely to establish an electoral system under which people of Canberra have not only a right to have a say in who their local member is, but also a right to have a say in who their government is. If the Government goes to the proportional representation system, which I think is advocated by the Opposition, it will not have such a system. Mr White —No, by the voice of the people-by the local paper. Mrs KELLY —The honourable member for McPherson refers consistently to the Canberra Times editorials. If members of the Opposition have followed the Canberra Times editorials, they will know that the Canberra Times has been very critical of the role of the Opposition in this town. Before I close my comments, I would like to make particular reference to the role of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. As Chairman of the Committee, I think it is important that that Committee assess its role in the light of any movement towards self-government. It is a great disgrace to this country that the national capital has a parliamentary committee as its only vehicle for the ordinary people of this town to have a say as to how Canberra is planned. What happens at the moment is that the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Capital Territory receives submissions from the ordinary people about things that affect them, and that is the only control that anybody has over the planning instituted by the National Capital Development Commission. If this legislation is successful and an Australian Capital Territory Council is set up with powers and responsibilities as outlined in this legislation, I believe that many of the functions that the Joint Parliamentary Committee has will become obsolete. In the context of this debate it is important that we also discuss the role that the national Parliament would have in Canberra. I believe that, for too long, the sole power and responsibility for making decisions that affect the people of Canberra have rested with this Parliament. It is about time that we, the people of this Territory, had a chance to have a say in our own affairs, and that is what this legislation is all about. I ask the Parliament to give the people of this Territory the chance to have a say about matters that affect them. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(8.21) —The purpose of the Australian Capital Territory Council Bill and the Australian Capital Territory Council (Consequential Provisions) Bill is to establish an Australian Capital Territory Council with the function of governing the Australian Capital Territory with respect to specific municipal and territorial matters. This legislation will vest in this Council formal legislative and executive powers and the Council will also administer other functions conferred on it by the Commonwealth from time to time. The fact of the matter is that the Liberal Party of Australia is not opposed and never has been opposed to self-government, if that is what the people of the Australian Capital Territory want. At various times the Liberal Party has presented proposals to the people of the Australian Capital Territory. It has submitted them specifically to the people of the Australian Capital Territory for decision, by way of referendum, as to whether the people want a form of self-government. On the last occasion that that was done the specific alternative proposals-there were two-were defeated. I will come to that in a moment. The Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) would have us believe that this is an historic occasion. The honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) would have us believe that these Bills are creating a form of tablets for government for the Australian Capital Territory, handed down from on high which we must accept. I regard those comments of the Minister and the honourable member for Canberra as so much hype. They certainly overestimate considerably the likely outcome of these Bills. As long as the Government remains wedded to the proposals in this specific form, with its specific electoral arrangements which have incurred so much adverse comment, this legislation will fail in this Parliament and there will be nothing historic about this occasion at all. The honourable member for Canberra suggested that this legislation was a viable package, but it was in fact a compromise package. Those were her words. If it was intended that this proposal would be viable and it was intended to be a compromise, some element of discussion should have taken place with the Opposition to see whether a real compromise could have been obtained. The Government had a number of mechanisms available to it and a number of steps were taken along the road to developing the specific proposals. One of those was in the form of the report of the Task Force on the Implementation of ACT Self Government. If it was intended that the specific proposals that the Government had in mind might well be some modification of the Task Force report, I would have thought it would have been a simple matter to go through much the same sort of consultative arrangements that the Task Force representatives went through in order to try to assess the views of the people of the Australian Capital Territory and to obtain a measure of support for the specific proposals. Canberra's political history is dotted with examples of political promises and commitments to develop self-government, but fulfilment of these undertakings has been elusive for Canberrans. I want briefly to put before the House some of the history of self-government proposals so that this issue can be understood in context. The first attempt to develop self-government proposals for the Australian Capital Territory was in 1928 when one of three members of the Federal Capital Development Commission was elected on a property franchise. That body did not last very long; it survived for only some two years. In May 1930, an advisory council was appointed; four officials were appointed and three were elected. That lasted for a much longer period, I think until 1974 when it was abolished. Certain changes were made to its composition in 1952. As early as 1934 the Scullin Government expressed the view that, in a few years, it would be able to give full civic control to the city people themselves. In 1949 the Chifley Government asked the Hobart Town Clerk to inquire into a possible form of self-government for the Australian Capital Territory. In 1955 a select committee on the development of Canberra recommended a legislative council with State-type functions, with no administrative powers and a multiplicity of local government arrangements. In 1957 an Institute of Public Administration study group recommended a national capital council. That is the sort of proposal that was put forward. It was not just the Australian Labor Party that suggested proposals of this sort. In 1967, Mr Anthony, who was the Minister for the Interior, proposed Commonwealth control over central Canberra with a handing over, at a later stage, of State-type functions to new municipal governments in Woden and Belconnen cities. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), a successor as Minister responsible for the Territories, suggested in 1971 that 1980 would be the date for self-government. He was not a very good seer in relation to that. With Labor in office in 1972, Labor Minister, Mr Enderby, asserted: The freedom of the Australian Government to protect its interest in the seat of government. On 30 September the term of the advisory council was extended and the question of self-government referred to the Joint Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. In May 1974, with the election, debate over self-government was joined. Prime Minister Whitlam asserted that self-government would arrive as soon as practicable after presentation of the Committee's report. The Liberal Party was not without views in that 1974 election. It included a statement specifically on the form that it thought self-government should take. In 1975, the Joint Committee-which I will refer to in a little more detail shortly-tabled its report. It was a multi-party report and it recommended: Self-government be granted to the ACT community in as wide terms as is consistent with the national interest. It recommended that there should be: A unicameral legislative assembly, operating on parliamentary lines with powers delegated in stages. As I have said, I will return to that report in a little while because it was a report of the parliamentary committee which dealt specifically with electoral arrangements. As I have said, it was supported by both Liberal and Labor members, subject to certain minor dissents. The new Government of Malcolm Fraser came into office in 1975 with a commitment to begin to transfer particular legislative and executive powers to the House of Assembly by July 1976. It established a task force which, by March 1976, reported on a program of transfer of functions and the necessary legislative, administrative and financial arrangements for such a transfer. In February 1976 Tony Staley announced that the July deadline could not be met and in September 1977 he released his detailed proposals after the work of that task force. The task force proposed a one-step delegation. I think we then had certain controversy about the financial arrangements and the financial implications, which confused the proposal somewhat. One of our former colleagues, Bob Ellicott, became Minister and in 1978 announced that there would be a referendum on the question of self-government. The referendum was held on 25 November 1978 and the questions and percentage votes were as follows: A. That self government be granted to the ACT by delegating functions to a locally elected body in stages- and 30.01 per cent voted in favour of that proposal- B. That a locally elected legislative body be established in the Territory with local government type legislative and executive functions- and 5.63 per cent voted in favour of that- C. That the existing arrangements for governing the Territory should continue for the time being- and 62.67 per cent of the people in the Australian Capital Territory voted for that proposal. So when the people were given an opportunity to express their views, albeit with certain confusion about financial arrangements in their minds, the proposal was clearly rejected. The Labor Party included this promise in its own platform before the 1982 election: Self-government for the ACT with devolution of powers on terms and conditions suitable to and agreed by both the Federal Government and the ACT House of Assembly. The Government came into office and the Governor-General had this to say: My Government is committed to bringing self government to the Australian Capital Territory. As a first step to a broad range of local government powers will be transferred to the ACT House of Assembly. The Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly was certainly intended to be involved but, over time, we have seen that the specific undertakings to bring self-government into effect immediately on coming to office have not been realised. The Labor Party has agonised over its proposals: It has had a task force looking at them and has considered the proposals further. We are now a considerable period downwind from that-some three years-and we have a new proposal which leaves the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly largely out of the proposals altogether-proposals which have in no way been negotiated with the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. This Bill has been the subject of very considerable criticism. The structure of the legislative body proposed has been the subject of criticism, to which I will return. We have also seen criticism that it is a body corporate and not a body politic; that was a matter that the task force itself directed its attention to. It is not called a legislative council; I guess that is intended to denote the lesser importance of the body that has been proposed. There is the proposal for single member electorates with optional preferential voting; that has been a matter of some criticism. Limited privilege will attach to this body, not the sort of privilege that would attach to a legislative body itself. It is subject to the Attorney-General being able to supervise the validity of legislation and make certain determinations in relation to that. That puts very considerable power into his hands-a matter which the Labor Party would not like in relation to any legislative chamber. There has been criticism in relation to the Australian Constitution where that issue has arisen. The Council does not have power to make laws in relation to industrial relations. The financial arrangements remain ill-defined, and funds are guaranteed for only two years. The task force itself recommended that funds ought to be guaranteed at least for five years. So, there has been a very considerable contraction of the undertakings that were offered in relation to that. In relation to the political processes and procedures that are to apply in respect of health and education and other matters, we have no real involvement for local participation, other than that perhaps which the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) has already suggested as being unsatisfactory, for all those matters that are now to be dealt with by the Australian Capital Territory Council. I understand that there will be no power to prosecute. We have difficulties because it will not develop Commonwealth-State tax sharing arrangements; no formula is proposed for that. One of my colleagues raised questions about the full cost of services that have largely been run down which might have to be met by the local community in time and what guarantees might exist in relation to that. There is the question of the functions that might be given to the Council without reference to Parliament, that is, by delegated legislation. That is a matter of some concern. The membership of the Council itself can be altered by regulation, that is, delegated legislation; that is a matter of concern. The powers of the Council may be similarly varied; that is a matter for concern. Undischarged bankrupts may be councillors; that is a matter that has been raised. Council may make retrospective laws; people have been critical of that. The electoral law for the Council itself can be prescribed by regulation rather than detailed legislation and without this Parliament further considering it other than by disallowance. There are the problems in relation to planning questions. The new National Capital Development Commission Bill, yet to be introduced, has not been seen and cannot be considered in relation to this specific legislation before us. One is concerned that the NCDC itself may be able to frustrate economic development and the Council's use of development as a way for bringing about benefits for the local community. The NCDC-Council relationship can be conducted behind closed doors, without the public being aware of it, having in mind the specific proposals that are before us. Also, there is the possibility of considerable duplication as the Council tries to develop its own planning facilities so that it can work together with the NCDC. There is criticism by the Canberra Association for Regional Development that the denial of lease marketing and management powers, which are presently in the hands of the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) and not in the hands of the NCDC, will severely limit the Council if it proceeds in its present form. They are the wide-ranging criticisms that have been made. If one were to try to address those matters in any meaningful way it would require very considerable redrafting of this Bill before us. That is not a matter that the Opposition can undertake; nor, in my view, is it reasonable to ask the Opposition and the Parliament to undertake it. If that matter is going to be addressed at all, it ought to be addressed by the Government coming to the Opposition and inviting it to contribute positively about the development of proposals that would be acceptable to both. That has not happened in relation to this matter at all. It needs to be understood that the Labor Party in its own policy envisaged that the House of Assembly would provide a major input in relation to the development of proposals for self-government for the Australian Capital Territory. These proposals specifically ignore the role of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly, and we know that the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly has had a report which was submitted by its Liberal, Independent and Labor members and which is very critical of the proposal that is before us. We have a resolution from the House, which I would like to briefly mention. It was in these terms: Whilst acknowledging that the Australian Capital Territory Council Bill represents a step forward in the evolutionary progress towards self government, the Assembly recommends that the legislation be amended to provide for- (a) 21 full time members; (b) multi-member electorates; (c) a grant of full privilege; (d) the Council be known as the A.C.T. Legislative Council (e) the removal of the Governor-General's power of dismissal; (f) the transfer, in stages, of all municipal and State powers and functions; and (g) the establishment of an office of Administrator; That is the body that the Labor Party undertook to consult; yet it has not consulted in any sense whatsoever. The most important area in which there has been a lack of consultation is in relation to the electoral arrangements themselves. The Government has put great pride in the fact that it has reformed electoral arrangements in this nation. It did so by the establishment of a joint committee of the Parliament to bring forward recommendations for the reform of the Commonwealth electoral laws, and it was in the context of the agreement that was able to be achieved through that medium that we saw significant changes to Commonwealth electoral laws that could not otherwise have been achieved. That is not proposed here. We have had handed down from on high tablets which have introduced for the first time proposals for single member constituencies for the Australian Capital Territory. My own research in relation to a number of proposals that have been before us previously reveals that single member constituencies have not been proposed for the Australian Capital Territory previously. If one looks at the report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, one can see that it dealt with the question of elections for the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. This was a committee comprising our former colleagues. The report stated: After consideration of all the evidence available to it on this subject the Committee recommends the division of the A.C.T. into two electorates based on the divisions currently used in House of Representatives elections. (This system was used in the recent Legislative Assembly election.) There are administrative advantages for the Electoral Office such as common electoral rolls and less frequent changes of boundaries than if a system based on an electorate for each elected member was initiated . . . There is a reasonable uniformity of both physical and social development throughout the urbanised portion of the A.C.T. which means that there would not likely be problems of areas requiring special representation. A former member for Fraser, Mr Fry, dissented from that-as I say, not in relation to the broad question as to whether or not there ought to be multi-member constituencies but rather only to suggest that the two electorates be divided into four, so that there would be two wards in each of the electorates of Canberra and Fraser. That was the extent to which he was prepared to dissent in relation to that report. In its report, on pages 45 to 49, the Task Force on the Implementation of Australian Capital Territory Self-Government considered the question of electoral arrangements. I do not want to deal with the report in any detail, but it makes some points about the sorts of principles that ought to operate in relation to the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. It said: Democratic principles should be the keystone of the ACT's electoral. In particular, the system must allow expression in the legislature of significant minority community views and ensure that the fundamental principles of democracy-the predominance of a majority-prevails. In the proposal that we have before us, clearly that principle would not be upheld. The possibility of significant minority views, in our view, would be constrained by the very nature of the sizes of the electorates proposed and the demographic nature of Canberra itself. That task force recommended an electoral system which was multi-member in form with proportional representation. It put two sets of proposals and I think they would have been perfectly appropriate for adoption in this instance. We have of course, the views of the Canberra Times, and that matter has been mentioned in debate already. Those arguments were very persuasive. I must say that it seems to me that any analogy between the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory is quite specious. The Northern Territory has remote communities that are quite different demographically, some with Aboriginals and some with large urban centres that require specific representation for geographical areas in order to get a diversity of viewpoints and to have the minorities represented. In the Australian Capital Territory, such proposals clearly are not required and not necessary. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(8.41) —The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) and the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) have made a strange grab bag of points. I would like to begin by replying to some of their less well-informed points. The honourable member for McPherson began by criticising what he described as bloated staffing in the Department of Territories. That really is a nonsense. When the functions were gathered together in the Department of Territories in December, only a very few new positions were created. The growth in the Department was through transfers from other departments, not through the creation of new positions. The comparisons that he made between the Australian Capital Territory Council and the Newcastle local government council were of course quite invalid because the ACT Council will be a territorial council with much greater functions than any city or local government council in Australia. It will be a unique form of government with many State-type functions as well as of course the municipal functions. The staffing figure that he gave of approximately 5,500 for the Department of Territories was, therefore, quite invalidly compared with the 984 people employed by the Newcastle council. The second point that the honourable member for McPherson made was that the Government intends to hand over run-down services. He should tell that to the rest of Australia. Most of the people in the rest of Australia think that the Australian Capital Territory is particularly well serviced. In fact the quality of services here is very good. The Australian Capital Territory Council will have only 900 employees engaged in municipal functions compared with Newcastle. In addition it will have 4,600 Council staff involved in functions that in other places would be State functions, including, for example, the electricity authority, the fire brigade, legal functions, water supply and sewerage, social security and welfare, housing which is a big employer, transport which is an even bigger employer, culture and recreation and many other functions such as tourism, forestry and territorial administration. In the ACT there will be approximately 230 people per municipal employee compared with about 141 people per employee in the Newcastle council, so in fact the Australian Capital Territory Council will be less heavily staffed for the municipal functions performed. But some areas in which there have been allegations of services being run down are in fact being upgraded at present. In the 1985-86 Budget, $17m is being spent on plant and equipment, compared with about $6m in 1984-85-a threefold increase-so no one can possibly argue that that is a basis for handing over a run-down service. The honourable member then moved on to criticise the Government for not accepting every recommendation in the report of the Vinson Review of Welfare Services on Policies in the Australian Capital Territory. That seemed to be what he was saying. While it is true that the Government has not decided to establish a new department of health and welfare, it has decided on what it regards as a better alternative. It is a much better alternative. That alternative includes moving the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority into the Department of Territories and establishing a community services council with the job of co-ordinating health and welfare functions. It has established a community services division within the restructured Department of Territories which brings together the welfare services that were spread around different parts of the Department previously. It has also decided to create 15 new social worker positions-positions that were desperately needed to upgrade a welfare service which had not been improved for 10 years during a period in which the population had grown by 50 per cent. It is approximately a 50 per cent increase in welfare staff and therefore will return the welfare service to roughly the position it was in 10 years ago; that in my view is entirely desirable. The honourable member seemed to criticise this creation of 15 positions and asked where the money will come from. It will come from the same sources as for welfare functions in the States, through a combination of Commonwealth grants and locally raised revenue. I will get back on to the point in a minute. I should conclude that point by saying that Professor Vinson and the Australian Capital Territory Council of Social Service have warmly welcomed and endorsed these initiatives by the Government. The Opposition has been trying to create an impression that the majority of opinion leaders in the Australian Capital Territory are opposed to self-government. That is simply not true. The majority of community leaders support self-government and many community groups have supported the broad thrust of the proposals in the Australian Capital Territory Council Bill and the Australian Capital Territory Council (Consequential Provisions) Bill. For example, ACTCOSS does not oppose the Bills, as was suggested by the Opposition. Recently ACTCOSS issued a statement criticising the Opposition's tactics of blocking the Bills without proposing alternatives-a real stick in the mud approach. ACTCOSS makes it clear that the Bills should be supported, not least because the alternative is to relegate the Australian Capital Territory to a political no person's land. The Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly also supports the Bills as a step forward although it is true that it has proposed amendments. But it has not proposed that the Bills be blocked and rejected as the Opposition is doing. Finally, the honourable member for McPherson said that the legislation had not been thought through. That really is a hypocritical point to make because, on the one hand, the Government has been working on these proposals for two years. The legislation has been under preparation for about 12 months. But in any case the Opposition refused a briefing on the legislation. It became clear from the comments of the Opposition spokesman that he had not really studied the proposals. If he had, he would have understood a lot more about them than appeared to be the case. I will move on from those comments to discuss the reasons why self-government is necessary and try to allay some of the uncertainties that it is true are felt by some people in the community. It is obvious that most people find uncertainties in the unknown. It is also true that Canberra has done relatively well in the past. Many people have asked why we need self-government; some of that questioning is still going on. That is what I would like to concentrate on to try to reply to those concerns. The most important reason for introducing responsible government is that ACT residents will then have the chance to govern themselves. At present the ACT is the only part of a Western country in which there are no democratically elected representatives with direct responsibility for at least some of the region's services. As a democracy we really do not have the right to choose that we will not take responsibility for our own government. Responsible government offers us freedom to choose. We will have the opportunity to set our own priorities, to manage our own affairs. The ACT is currently governed by people who are not directly accountable to us. Most decisions are taken by Ministers who are elected by people in other parts of Australia or by officials who are not elected at all. No matter how good a Minister is or how effective the officials are, that is not an adequate basis for government if we want a government that takes account of the wishes of the people of the Territory. At present policy for the ACT is set by fiat rather than by democratic process. The Territory is controlled by a dozen Ministers. Some people in the community imagine that only one Minister has responsibility. Until the functions were gathered together in one department, a dozen Ministers were responsible for the ACT. That number has been reduced to three or four, but there is still no attempt to co-ordinate their responsibilities at either a ministerial or departmental level. The Australian Capital Territory politicians elected to both the Commonwealth Parliament and the House of Assembly do not have any direct formal power to represent constituents. We use our limited influence to advocate policies on behalf of voters but the decisions are all taken by Ministers and officials who are not directly accountable to the Australian Capital Territory community. Therefore, the current structure of government in the Territory is unrepresentative, paternalistic and inadequately co-ordinated, and that is entirely unsatisfactory. It is true that the standard of services and of the built environment in the Australian Capital Territory is generally high. The Commonwealth has taken seriously the building and servicing of an excellent national capital, even to an extent which causes envy in other parts of the country. However, there have been signs of growing scepticism about Commonwealth expenditure in Canberra during the last decade. Governments have allowed national priorities, rather than local needs, to determine our place in the Territory. The most obvious example is the four-year gap in land development between 1978 and 1982, which caused a shortage of land for housing and higher land and house prices and was obviously to the great disadvantage of the local community. To prevent such arbitrary decisions in the future the Australian Capital Territory needs a government which can negotiate on behalf of the community in the same way as State governments and allocate funds to the areas which need them most. We need to be able to set our own priorities. People in the Australian Capital Territory are generally well aware of their rights but those rights are linked with responsibilities. More people and community groups in Canberra are coming to recognise that we have to accept responsibility for our own government in the same way as every other part of Australia accepts it. That is part of growing up. During the last year there have been campaigns for more nurses, smaller class sizes in schools, more police and more child care centres. There has been a shortage of public housing. There are complaints about the frequency of buses and the firefighters want more sophisticated firefighting units. Representatives of the Canberra community would be better informed and more sensitive to local opinion, and therefore better able to choose between these competing claims, than Federal Cabinet. It is absurd that Federal Cabinet members have to discuss the level of funding for the Australian Capital Territory library service. The new system of government embodied in these Bills will establish a structure which will allow this to happen. The Australian Capital Territory Council, due to be elected next September, will take over the municipal and territorial functions of part of the Department of Territories and all other local services such as education and health when the Council and the community are ready. In the meantime, most of these other services are being integrated into a single Commonwealth portfolio enabling improved co-ordination and financial management and ease of transfer when the time comes. This in itself is a very important change because gaps can now be identified and areas where the quality of service is less than ideal can be more directly addressed and identified. In other words, at an administrative level choices can now be made between competing claims for funds, but that still needs to happen at a political level. The proposal to elect the 13 members of the Australian Capital Territory Council from individual electorates offers the opportunity for effective, sensitive and accountable representation. Voters will be able to identify their member clearly, parties will have to pre-select good quality candidates because every candidate will be scrutinised carefully by the electors, and members will have to be responsive to their electorates or they will not be re-elected. In a sense it is also a way of contributing to community development at a local level because it is a way of creating a community identity within the electorate. To call this a gerrymander is quite absurd because the electorates will be of equal size and the boundaries will be set by the Electoral Commission. It will be difficult, though not impos- sible, for small parties-such as the Family Team and the Nuclear Disarmament Party, and for Independents-to win election but the system is accepted as the norm not only throughout Australia but also throughout the British Commonwealth, and it ensures stable and disciplined government. The optional preferential system of voting which will be used increases the chances of smaller parties and Independents because, if they win a substantial minority of votes, preferences could lift their vote to over 50 per cent. That point seems to have been forgotten in the debate. The size of the Council is reasonable. By the time of the election there will be about 20,000 people in each electorate. This is larger than the electorates of the State parliaments of Tasmania, Western Australia and South Australia, and we do not have a local government which shares responsibilities as those States do. The pay of members will be set by the Remuneration Tribunal, which I think is very likely to recognise their substantially greater responsibilities than those of members of the House of Assembly. When the transfer of State-type functions is completed in a few years, salaries close to those of State parliamentarians are certain to be agreed on. The Australian Capital Territory Council will have proper legislative, executive and financial powers, so attempts to portray it as some kind of local government council are quite wrong. In other words, these Bills provide the parliamentary structure for full responsible government. The leading spokesman for the Opposition appeared to misunderstand that point. He believed that the Council was some kind of local council, but that was simply an indication that he did not seem to have studied the Bills. The Commonwealth will retain a veto over council legislation but, as the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) has said, clearly this veto will be used only in the most exceptional circumstances. He pointed to the fact that similar power over the Northern Territory has never been used. An important aspect of the new arrangements which has been overlooked so far is that rather than having Ministers in charge of departments and authorities the various functions of the Council will be controlled by committees which will include representatives of all groups in the Council. That is quite an innovation and a rather attractive feature of the Bills which, I think, deserves much stronger support than it has had. This legislation ensures that all members of the Council will have a role in government. The exact nature of that role will have to be worked out in practice but it is an innovation that really makes the Council a much more attractive legislature. The Council will have the normal financial powers of a State government. It will have the full taxing powers of a State government, for example, including the opportunity to set priorities for expenditure and the power to borrow. However, there is no reason to expect that taxation levels will be any higher with these arrangements than they would have been if existing arrangements had been continued as the same services will have to be provided and the cost of the small new Council will be relatively slight. In fact, its cost is likely to be no higher than that of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. It is significant that the Commonwealth has already accepted that future financial arrangements will recognise `the unique circumstances prevailing in the Australian Capital Territory because of its national capital character'. This recognition ensures that more than just the normal factors involved in Commonwealth-State financial arrangements will influence the Territory's financial allocation. The same situation will be true of the Australian Capital Territory as is true of the States. The Australian Capital Territory will get the major part of its funds from the Commonwealth and only a minor part of its funds through taxation. The detailed arrangements after the two-year guarantee period can be negotiated only by a council elected with that power. The Commonwealth has given a full guarantee for the next two-year period. Staff of the Australian Capital Territory administration are assured of comparable conditions with those of the Australian Public Service and of transferability and their unions have been promised that there will be negotiation with them. All these arrangements have been carefully planned so as to introduce democratic, efficient and effective government to the Australian Capital Territory with minimal disruption. The opinions expressed by members of the community during the last couple of years have been fully taken into account. That is why the Council is small, for example. The number of politicians is being reduced, rather than increased, and the Commonwealth has given a financial guarantee. These provisions have broken the Australian Capital Territory out of a stalemate which has lasted for several decades. The historic proposals for responsible government deserve the support of everyone concerned about good government and I hope and expect that they will receive that support from the great majority of Canberrans. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I call the honourable member for Fisher. Mrs Kelly —A great supporter of the Australian Capital Territory. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(9.00) —I thank the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) for her comment. I am pleased and privileged to be following, in this debate on the Australian Capital Territory Council Bill 1986 and the Australian Capital Territory Council (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1986, the honourable members representing the Australian Capital Territory. Whilst I certainly would not presume in any way, shape or form to doubt the sincerity of those honourable members, for whom I have the highest personal regard, I cannot agree with their approach to this legislation. It must have been an invidious, unfortunate and unenviable position for the two honourable members who represent the Australian Capital Territory to stand up in this chamber and support what the Canberra Times in its editorial of 20 March 1986 headlined as `An insulting imposition'. However, I suppose that the Australian Labor Party Caucus decided the way it had to go. I am certain that it, if not the people of Canberra, will be duly appreciative of the way in which these honourable members have supported the Caucus position. On the other hand, I presume to speak on behalf of the 14,700,000 other Australians who do not live in the Australian Capital Territory. Those people, who are, no doubt as we all are, proud of our Federal capital, are concerned about the way in which perhaps too much of the Australian taxpayer's dollar finds its way into expenditure in this feather-bedded part of the nation. Mr Tim Fischer —Particularly ACTION buses. Mr SLIPPER —As the honourable member for Farrer points out, public transport is subsidised by the Federal Government, as are so many other facets of activity in this Territory. The people of the Australian Capital Territory have an exceptionally high per capita income. Yet notwithstanding that, the Commonwealth has found a bottomless pit from which to fund activities of a capital and other nature in this area. One has only to look at the statistics to notice that the Australian Capital Territory produces very little in the way of Australian exports. What is the contribution of the Australian Capital Territory to Australia's export earnings? One should note that Queensland contributes over $6.602 billion-21 per cent of the Australian national total-whereas the Australian Capital Territory merely contributes about $3.272m. Queensland and New South Wales produce 21 per cent and 24 per cent respectively of total export earnings, while the people of the Australian Capital Territory, who receive an unprecedented proportion of Australian Federal expenditure, produce only 0.2 per cent. Mr McGauran —They are all diplomats. That is the biggest export from this place. Mr SLIPPER —They probably are diplomats, as the honourable member for Gippsland correctly points out to the House. I am amazed at how my colleagues who represent the Australian Capital Territory can stand up in this place and support this legislation which will ensure that there is increased and continuing Federal Government expenditure here. We should consider the fact that the High Court of Australia building cost about $49m. That is over $16m per courtroom. How on earth can anyone justify $16m per courtroom? The new Parliament House was originally going to cost under $200m. Unfortunately, with the way the expenditure has blown out, the cost is likely to be closer to $900m. By the time it is finished it will probably pass the $1,000m mark. That is almost what the supporting parent's benefit is costing the people of Australia. It is costing about $1,066m every 12 months. Mrs Kelly —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This legislation is about issues that affect the ordinary people of Canberra. The ordinary people of Canberra are not affected by the High Court building or the new Parliament House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr SLIPPER —I admire the valiant but futile effort of the honourable member for Canberra to defend the expenditure on the Australian Capital Territory I respectfully submit that expenditure of $1,066m on the supporting parent's benefit is a matter which would also concern citizens of the Australian Capital Territory. I have indicated a couple of expenditure figures and now point out the percentage of Federal Government capital expenditure in the Australian Capital Territory. It is 43 per cent. In a Territory which produces 0.2 per cent of our gross national exports, we find that 43 per cent of the Commonwealth's overall capital works is expended. Whilst I know that Canberra is the national capital-we all share some pride in it-I wonder whether the Commonwealth should be paying out the amount of money it does. No doubt this is a matter which the Australian Federal Government, the Australian Labor Party, will have to contemplate as the next election draws ever nearer. This legislation is a farce. It is neither one thing nor the other. It is certainly not full territorial or full State government. It is certainly not quite local authority government. It is almost Clayton's legislation. It does not satisfy the aspirations of either the more extreme members who represent the Canberra area or those who believe that Canberra receives too much money. I believe that the Government should withdraw this legislation. The Government has brought it into the Parliament without properly thinking through its consequences. Mr McGauran —It is calculated manipulation of the electoral system. Mr SLIPPER —The honourable member could well be right. The Government should reconsider this legislation because it will not achieve the support of the majority of the people of Australia. The Canberra Times is opposed to it. The Opposition is opposed to it. I believe that Liberal Party members of the House of Assembly are opposed to it. The only people who support it are perhaps the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) and, the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore). Whilst they are sincere, dedicated and likable people, I wonder how they can honestly support legislation in this chamber which will have almost no public backing from either the Australian Capital Territory or the rest of Australia. Australians require this Government to go more thoughtfully into this issue. Regardless of what people say, Canberra is the national capital and is likely to remain so, although, of course, Brisbane would be a much more suitable choice. Facts are, however, facts and, although money must be spent here, we must spend it as good husbandry would require. Money should be spent properly, in a considered manner and without a complete disregard for the taxpayer's pocket. Whilst some of the people who live in the Australian Capital Territory might support the honourable member for Canberra-although restauranteurs in the Australian Capital Territory certainly do not do so any more-and my Labor Party colleagues opposite, I believe that there is very little public support or backing for this ill-thought out legislation which the Minister has seen fit to try to impose on the people of Australia. I suggest this solution: To avoid depriving the taxpayers' purse of an unreasonable percentage of Australia's total national wealth, the Government should forget its legislation and undertake a series of consultations with the States and the people of Canberra so that not only will legislation be brought forward which will have the support and backing of the members representing the Australian Capital Territory in this place, but also the legislation will be suitable, fitting and appropriate for a Federal capital. I am sorry that I have to oppose honourable members opposite in this matter, but I honestly feel that the Australian people expect better from this Government on this occasion. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(9.11) —I have just listened to the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper). He had the audacity to compare Queensland when it came to a government wasting money- Mr McGauran —Queensland threw you out; you are a failed politican. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) — Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will cease interjecting. Mr WRIGHT —He is a wanker, a political wanker. We know that. Mr McGauran —I take a point of order. I find those words offensive. Mr WRIGHT —They were meant to be, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Will the honourable member withdraw? Mr WRIGHT —They were meant to be offensive, but I will withdraw. Mr McGauran —You are a second rater; they threw you out. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Gippsland will cease interjecting or he will not be here to hear the rest of the debate. Mr WRIGHT —Mr Deputy Speaker, you can understand why I described the honourable member in such a fashion, can you not? The anti-Canberra speech that we just heard from the honourable member for Fisher- Mr Langmore —Is it broadcast? Mr WRIGHT —I only wish that the people of Canberra could have heard the speech, as the honourable member for Fraser said. The honourable member for Fisher had the audacity to compare the expenditure by governments. He talked about the Queensland Government. He talked about waste. Honourable members will remember that that Government spent $8.5m on private planes for the Premier. It spent almost $1m on National Party advertising. For five minutes every Sunday evening on commercial television, one must listen to National Party propaganda, paid for by Queensland taxpayers, to promote the National Party. It is the same Queensland Government that had a council spend $300,000 on a road which strangely and coincidentally assisted the son of a certain politican. It built a school for five children in the same area and spent $4m for a dam near the same property. The honourable member has the audacity to talk about waste. Let us come back to the examples he gave and the comparisons that he made. He talked about the High Court of Australia, the Australian National Gallery and Parliament House. These three projects were initiated by the Liberal-National Party Government. They were put forward by Barwick in the High Court. The Liberal-National Party Government committed this Commonwealth Government to the expenditures that the honourable member has criticised. I suggest that he is being hypocritical, as are other Opposition spokesmen tonight. They oppose the Bill outright. Therefore, they are against the principle of self-government. By opposing the legislation they are against the right of self-determination for the people of Canberra. They are prepared to support the proposition that those people should be taxed without having proper representation. They are political hypocrites. Mr White —You aren't serious about it? Mr WRIGHT —The honourable member for McPherson should not start to interject. He was offered the chance to be briefed and talk about this matter. He did not have the willingness or desire to do so, nor did his counterparts in the Senate. We know all about those opposite and their real interest in this Australian Capital Territory Council Bill. We know that the senior members of the Opposition repeatedly rejected the opportunity to have briefings on these proposals. The real opposition is to the principle of single-member electorates. That is what they are against. They are not worried about the people of Canberra having a say. They are against the whole concept of single-member electorates in this Bill. Mrs Kelly —Because they can't win. Mr WRIGHT —As the honourable member for Canberra said, they are saying that because they cannot win. They are being totally inconsistent, because, as I pointed out to the honourable member for Fisher, a previous Liberal-National Party government legislated for single-member constituencies in the Northern Territory. Those opposite seem to want to walk away from that now. I suggest that the Opposition is opposing this Bill for selfish, political motives. Those opposite fear that they-the Liberals particularly-would not win on the Council. They certainly would not on the performance that they bring into this House and they certainly would not with the lack of policies that they present as a party. On looking at the political history, one would believe that their concerns are not as great because, of the last five elections, two were won by Liberal Party candidates. If one goes back to 1974, the Australian Labor Party secured only 24 per cent of the vote. Liberals in the House of Assembly election gained about 30 per cent. So it is not always true that single-member electorates will support any particular party, especially the party in government, as we find in Brisbane with the Brisbane Council. For almost 20 years there was a National-Liberal coalition in the State, yet the Labor Party controlled the Brisbane City Council. Mr Slipper —Who controls it now? Mr WRIGHT —The Liberals do. We hope to see a change in that. I notice that the National Party did not even have the courage to stand members at the election. They talked about standing but at the last minute they backed off. I do not think that the honourable member as a National Party member, has the right to talk about the issue. The Opposition also raised the matter of Independents. The small size of the electorates that have been outlined by the honourable member for Fraser-although they are quite large in comparison with those in Tasmania and other areas-certainly would enhance the chance of Independents. That is a healthy political system. I am not surprised by the attitude of the Liberal and National Parties. From 1975 to 1982 they kept promising self-determination but they did nothing. Tonight they will try to make sure that nothing further is done. In contrast, the Australian Labor Party is honouring its promises. It is adhering to the very important political principle of one vote, one value. It proposes the concept of single-member electorates, not because of political motive, but because we believe that it is the best system for the people of Canberra. It would ensure the best type of representation because the representatives would have to be responsive first and foremost to local issues and, more importantly, to the local constituents. There is another advantage which differs from the Hare-Clark system in Tasmania in particular. Electors would be able to identify with their member. Instead of having to find the best member to represent them, they would have a member who would be bound to them, be responsible and, one would hope, responsive to them. The electors would also be able to identify with those representatives who would be bound to identify with their electorate. In contrast, the proportional representation system is somewhat unstable. I suspect from the information that I have been given about the smaller groups in Canberra that we might find shifting alliances. That might sound very democratic but it certainly brings about instability in government, especially if those Independents were to swap allegiances. Self-government is necessary for good government. The Council would be responsible and accountable to the electorate. That is what we are talking about; a system of government where those in power would have to be responsible to the people who put them there. What is the alternative put forward by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), the honourable member for Fisher and others? The alternative is continued Commonwealth control where the responsibility and power, even for local issues as the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) and the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) said, lie with the Commonwealth Government. The everyday, ordinary issues affecting the people of the ACT would be dealt with by the Commonwealth Government. That is not good enough. It could be said that the Liberal-National Party is saying that the ACT is better off in the hands of the Commonwealth. That could be seen as a vote of confidence for the way that the Hawke Labor Government, and particularly the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), has run this area. We do not want a vote of confidence; we want the right for the people of Canberra to vote for representatives to be responsible to them. I have looked very carefully at the proposals put forward by the Minister. The ACT will be financially secure under the Bill. Funding guarantees extend for five years. Whilst that is broken into two periods, there will be a guarantee. The Council will also have recourse to the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The cost of the changeover will be minimised and the interests of transferring staff will be protected. In every way, there are inbuilt protections for the Council; financial protections which would probably concern the people of the ACT who have some reservations. It needs to be understood that this is a unique form of government. It is not a carbon copy of that in the States. It is not simply a superimposing of some sort of municipal government. Whilst it has elements of both, it is unique. That government will allow a single political head and a single Australian Public Service head. Yet there is an enormous breadth of functions. This is so very important. One notices that the functions include community and municipal affairs. In particular, they include welfare services, housing, sport, recreation and entertainment. One could ask why a Commonwealth government should be worrying about the recreation issues of the people of Canberra. Why should a Commonwealth government or some bureaucracy or quango have power over the entertainment or cultural affairs of the people of Canberra? Why should it have control over waste matters, littering and pests and noxious plants? I can understand that there is a need for Commonwealth input when it comes to national aspects or overall national facilities-no one argues with that and the Commonwealth will continue to maintain its responsibilities there-but surely it should not exercise its control over landlords and tenants, censorship, building standards and consumer affairs. Surely this is the right of a council at a local level. Environment protection and conservation, food marketing, emergency supplies, public safety, liquor and gambling, road traffic, roads and bridges, road and water transport and tourism are all areas in which I suggest, and contend rather strongly, local people want to have a say. They want to ensure that the representatives that they elect will represent them on these issues. If they do not agree with what is happening, they can do something about it at an election. They do not have to go kowtowing to a Commonwealth government or the National Capital Development Commission. They ought to be able to go to their representatives, and those representatives ought to be responsible to these people for these issues. It amazes me that members of the Liberal and National parties this evening have opposed these provisions-have opposed the idea of self-determination for hundreds of thousands of Australians. That is what they are doing. Why? Because they do not want to see these people have the right to vote on these important issues. They want to disenfranchise them; that is what they are about. Mr White —We are not the only ones-the Canberra Times, the Australian Capital Territory Assembly. Mr WRIGHT —The honourable member for McPherson interjects, and I noted when he spoke that he quoted at some length from the Canberra Times. I recall the honourable member when he was in the State Parliament and it seems he has not lost the technique of quoting selectively when he wants to put forward an argument. So that the people who read Hansard-although there are not enough of them-will really see the truth of the issue I place on record what the Canberra Times also said on Thursday, 20 March 1986: In normal circumstances, the proposed changes to the National Capital Development Commission would seem a great step forward. For the first time, the people of the ACT will have a formal say in ACT land planning and development; at least on local rather than national matters, the new Council will have to be consulted and will have to agree before the NCDC can implement its proposals . . . it is eminently sensible-indeed long overdue . . . Canberra has suffered too much from the separation, different priorities and different attitudes to lease enforcement. The editorial goes on, inter alia: It means . . . that Canberra can be planned and developed according to its needs, rather than at the whim of a Federal Government preoccupied with annual Budget cuttings, that the commission can be more commercially oriented and more responsive to demand . . . So the Canberra Times also made some extremely positive comments about the Government's proposals-proposals that I believe are in the interests of people and should be supported as such. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(9.23) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I be permitted to preface my remarks by saying that without any doubt the nearly three years that I had the honour of being the Minister for the Capital Territory were three very exciting and rewarding years for me. It is with some genuine pleasure that I recognise departmental advisers in the House tonight with whom I worked during that three-year period. It came as a considerable surprise to me on 3 November 1980 to be invited by the then Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser, to join his Ministry but it came as even more of a surprise to me to be invited to take the portfolio of Minister of State for the Capital Territory. I must confess some puzzlement as to why I, from Tasmania-as Ian Warden of the Canberra Times repeatedly pointed out-had been given the honour of being the Minister responsible for the administration of the Australian Capital Territory-or, as I preferred to call it, the national capital. I might say in passing that I still believe that the best title that I can come up with for the portfolio now held by my friend and colleague the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) is Minister for the National Capital. To me it encapsulates everything. Canberra is the capital of Australia; it belongs to all Australians and, unless and until all Australians feel that they have a real part in Canberra, it will never quite have the character and the prestige which other national capitals, such as London and Washington, have. Canberra is certainly getting there and it has advanced dramatically, particularly in the post-Menzies era. That is not to criticise Sir Robert Menzies but rather to pay tribute to that great and longest serving Australian Prime Minister, who did appreciate the significance of Canberra as our national capital. I was looking at the life of the late Sir John McEwen only three days ago and noted that before World War II Sir John held the portfolio which involved responsibility for Canberra. I can remember at the time of my own appointment that the then Deputy Prime Minister of Australia and your former leader, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Rt Hon. J. D. Anthony, said to me: `This is a prestige portfolio; it will either make you or break you'. I do not know whether it has made me or broken me but I will say that it is a prestige portfolio which I am honoured to have held at a very interesting and exciting time in the development of our national capital. I came to the position of Minister for the Capital Territory just two years after a referendum had been put to the people of Canberra by my predecessor, the Hon. R. J. Ellicott QC. As the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) reminded us earlier tonight, that referendum revealed that some 62 per cent of the people of Canberra did not wish the present system changed at that time. I have always felt that that figure was a little on the high side but, having said that, I had no doubt during my term as Minister that the majority of people in Canberra for one reason or another, right or wrong, did not want the present system changed. During my term as Minister for the Capital Territory some very interesting people came on the scene and argued very strongly, in some cases eloquently, for a transition to self-government in Australia's national capital. I particularly remember Mrs Sue Craven, a member of the House of Assembly, along with a few friends ceremoniously dumping in Lake Burley Griffin some tea chests to remind all Canberrans and all Australians of the Boston Tea Party and the proposition of no taxation without representation. I can remember the horrors of the Lynch committee, the Review of Commonwealth Functions, which directed me to do a number of extraordinary things in the hope of saving costs in Canberra. I can remember, for example, going before the Review of Commonwealth Functions committee and being presented with a list prepared by some genius in Treasury or perhaps the Department of Finance which, amongst other things, strongly urged me to privatise the two cemeteries in Canberra. I well remember asking whether this was a genuine suggestion, and when I was told that it was I then asked the committee to tell me how I would get on with privatising the two cemeteries in Canberra, because one of them had been closed for the last three years. I said I did not think that the market for closed cemeteries was all that hot, whereupon Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle nearly fell off her seat. That was the sort of proposition that was put to us; there were all sorts of things. For example, it was put as a proposition that we should eliminate the expense of licensing dogs-that Canberra's dogs should be the only un- licensed dogs in Australia. The thought of that and what it would have done to the footpaths of Canberra was somewhat appalling. I was directed to dispose of a number of government and semi-government operations. The nursery out next to the Royal Canberra golf course was written up in the National Times. I was directed, among other things, to sell the Belconnen Mall, and we will be hearing more about that in a more recent context. I was also directed to get rid of the ACTION bus service. That was marvellous, but plenty of people were interested in the good routes and none in the bad routes. I suppose that is the story of life. We went through a most interesting period. It was during that time that as Minister I was directed to set up an inquiry, which I did, into the future of the National Capital Development Commission and the administration of Canberra generally. I do not stop to go in detail into the report of the White Committee of Review of the Role and Functions of the National Capital Development Commission, except to say that the views which came at that time were quite interesting. It was like two magnets operating against each other. There was a certain degree of feeling between the Department on the one hand and the NCDC on the other, with the Assembly in the middle. Looking at the Minister's benign smile, I suppose that he is saying to himself that nothing has changed. It was at that time that Mr Charles McDonald, President of the ACT Trades and Labour Council, said to me privately, and then repeated publicly, that the House of Assembly was a toy parliament. The then leader of the majority party in the House of Assembly was Mr Peter Vallee. He was a member of the Labor Party, but I was able to talk with him, that is, up until the time he decided to support the cause of Argentina in the Falkland Islands war, which I found a little hard to take. But we got on quite well. I offered him the entire gamut of municipal functions for Canberra, conditional only on one thing-that the Assembly would have to undertake the responsibility to strike the rates. That was where the buck stopped. There was a willingness to exercise the powers, but a marked unwillingness to bite the bullet by striking the rates. As history knows, in 1983 there was a change of government. The incoming Hawke socialist Government gave a clear and unequivocal commitment that the ACT would move speedily to self-government. There were no ifs or buts-it was to be self-government. The only recent contemporary pattern of a transfer to self-government in Australia is in the Northern Territory. I think many people would have assumed that what was being promised by the Labor Party, quite falsely, in 1982 was a proper transition to self-government and ultimate statehood. I know these things because I incurred the wrath of the Canberra Times and other purists in Canberra when I agreed to the change in title of the position from President of the Assembly to Speaker of the Assembly. Letters were written to the newspaper and people went on radio and said that one cannot be Speaker of a parliament unless it is truly autonomous, with full powers of self-government. Three years down the track the legislation comes before the House. I shall abbreviate my remarks and get right to the point. The legislation which comes before the House is, I have to say bluntly to the Minister, a fraud. It is democracy with a condom. It is self-government of a toy town nature. It is not fair dinkum, genuine self-government, as the Minister well knows. The Canberra Times summed it up correctly in its editorial of Thursday, 20 March, under the heading `An insulting imposition'. What the Government is saying to 250,000 Australians is: `We are going to serve something up to you which we say is self-government, and you are going to cop it whether you like it or not'. I bear the Minister no ill will. Indeed, I find him one of the affable, friendly and gentlemanly members of the Hawke socialist Government. But on this he is intransigent. He says: `You will take it or leave it. There is no room for compromise.' Mr Braithwaite —There is no consensus there. Mr HODGMAN —That is right, no consensus. You either take it or you are back to square one. That disappoints me about the Minister for Territories because when he was Speaker of this Parliament he was regarded by both sides as a very good Speaker. Why should he be so intransigent, dogmatic and pigheaded on a matter as fundamental as this? Mr Braithwaite —He got his marching orders. Mr HODGMAN —The plain fact-as the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), who is so articulate and precise, as is the way of the accountant, with nary a word wasted, says so neatly-is that the Minister got his marching orders. The Minister was told: `This is what you will give them and this is what they will accept'. They included a chairperson, who becomes dictator of Canberra, and 12 part time councillors, with nothing to make efficient the administration of Australia's national capital. The Minister has first rate officers in his Department from the top right down through the ranks. I say, quite frankly and apolitically, that I think the Department of Territories is one of the best departments in the Commonwealth bureaucracy, because it is close to the people. It has to deal with things as mundane as drains, sewerage, fire brigades and bus timetables. One has only to look at some of the other airy-fairy departments around here to realise this, because those departments do not see a human being in weeks. They are out of touch with reality, but the Minister's Department is in touch with the people. Let us go back to what Sir Henry Bland said nearly 10 years ago. Here one has a situation where the Minister for the Capital Territory-or Minister for Territories as he is now called, and I am sad that the name has been changed, because to equate Australia's national capital with other Territories is a little demeaning; noblesse oblige and all that, but still demeaning-officially appears to be running the place. However, if he checks his list he will find that 17 other Ministers-it was 13 in my day, but has now gone to 17-are dabbling their sticky little fingers in the Canberra pie. How can the Minister say to 260,000 people `This is how we will run the national capital', when he knows that at that very moment he is being blamed for ordinances not having come through because they are stuck up in pigeonholes with cobwebs on them in the Attorney-General's Department; that he cannot take any action on health matters because he has a peripatetic Health Minister, whose list of priorities is such that the Minister comes down, right down at the tail end. The present Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is fast imposing on the people of Australia the motto of Hawke Medicare, which is simply `Die first, hospital later' and Canberra comes right down at the end of the list of priorities. Some 17 of the Ministers' brother and sister Ministers are inter-meddling, but the Minister for Territories carries the can. The administration of Canberra is a disgrace. I believe that the Minister should be as responsible as if he were Premier of a State for the overall administrative position. I think it is a nonsense, inefficient and totally counterproductive to the good administration of Canberra that the Minister for Territories, the honourable member for Corio, has to run around the raspberry bush every day of the week checking to see whether what he wants to do has the approval of his brother and sister Ministers and, more importantly, the approval of their octopus-like bureaucracies, all of which love to dabble in the interests of Canberra. So what have we got here? We have legislation in the dark, democracy thwarted, self-government which is a joke. The Minister above all must recognise that the perfect model was there. The State of Tasmania has five Federal electorates, each one of which under the Hare-Clark system produces seven members. It is the mathematically fairest and most precise system of election of any parliament in the world down to a margin of 0.001 per cent. It reflects the will of the people. What is the Government talking about here? It is talking about artificially created electorates on top of those already established for the divisions of Canberra and Fraser. It is talking about a chairperson. I wish that word could be removed and destroyed forever. I agree with the Attorney-General of Tasmania when he says that, in his business, the word `Ms' does not apply. I am sick of this sexist extremism. Look what it does to the name of Hodgman. I become Hodgperson. Then people say that `son' is sexist, so I become Hodgperper and I have the misfortune to be the member for Denison, which then becomes Deniper. It might be thought all very well for someone like the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) but the affirmative action has its name on his seat. Before the election the honourable member for Calwell is Andrew Theophanous and after it will be Andrea. Chairperson-what a disgrace! I remember when a former shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations released his first Press statement in which he referred to himself as the Opposition spokesperson on industrial relations and I said: `There it is-Samson shorn by Delilah'. The signature at the bottom was R. J. L. Hawke. He was gone even before he got to the the Lodge. It is an absolute tragedy. I have to say quite bluntly that the mud has now been stirred up to such an extent by this incompetent Hawke socialist Government that, before anything is done, at the very least, the 250,000-plus residents of the Australian Capital Territory should have the right to go to the ballot box and express their views in a democratic referendum. That is not the Opposition's policy. Its policy is simply that we are not going to be party to sham legislation; we are not going to be party to legislation that sets up a toy town, playschool self-government fiasco, because that is what it is. The Government is not prepared to even talk about a mayor of Canberra; it is not prepared to talk about a Chief Minister of Canberra. The whole thing is an expensive and cruel farce. I conclude by saying that this is one of those rare occasions when I find myself in total agreement with the editorial of the Canberra Times: This is an insulting imposition which is totally unworthy of the national capital of the finest nation in the world. Mr SAUNDERSON(Aston)(9.43) —I rise to support the Australian Capital Territory Council Bill and the cognate Bill, because I think this is another fine example of why the Australian Labor Party is in government. These Bills give the people of Canberra the right to have a say in their own destiny. I must say that I found more enjoyment in the speech from the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) than I did in the speech from the shadow spokesperson, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). I found that the latter apparently had no understanding of the Australian Capital Territory and the people who live in it, or even the Australian Labor Party policy and its method of operation. He tried to intertwine the two but got totally confused. I must say that I found the whole thing quite amusing. Obviously, the honourable member for McPherson would rather be the shadow spokesman for defence, finance, or some other thing, but anything other than the Australian Capital Territory, because he just does not understand it. Mr White —How long have you lived in the Australian Capital Territory? Mr SAUNDERSON —That is really what the honourable member for McPherson does not understand. As the person involved in infrastructure, I have been involved for at least three or four years in this whole activity, which is far more than can be said for the honourable member for McPherson as the shadow spokesperson. What we are moving towards in this form of self-government will, I believe, in the end result be totally welcomed by the community of Canberra. It has been suggested that we should have things such as referendums, that we should put it to the people and that we should do a whole range of things, but what the Opposition forgets is that this has basically been the subject of a referendum in the last two elections, because it has been Australian Labor Party policy. The people in Canberra who have voted for the Party have had it made quite clear to them that the ALP in government would introduce self-government, the right for them to determine their own direction. The Government is now introducing self-government legislation. It is farcical for the Opposition to stand up and say that we should have a referendum and put it to the people, because that has occurred during the last two Federal elections. What we really have to address is whether or not 250,000 people, 50,000 people, or whatever the number might be-the number is really immaterial-who live within a Territory or a State should have the right of self-determination. As a party in government we say that they do, but the Opposition says that they do not. People are saying that we are intransigent because we say that there is to be no discussion and no compromise on this issue-and there is not, because we are not going to compromise on the fact that people are entitled to self-government. We are not going to compromise on the fact that they ought to elect people for single member electorates, because that is the best form of self-government. It makes elected representatives answerable to particular constituencies. It is the way that the Federal electoral system operates, so why should we take a different attitude for the Australian Capital Territory? Is the Opposition really saying that single constituency electorates are not the proper way to go? They are quite happy to have it that way for themselves sitting here in Federal Parliament. It is all right for us in a Federal scene to have such a system; it is all right for the Tasmanians to have five Federal members from single member electorates whether or not the numbers in Tasmania justify five Federal members, because it gets them into office; but it is not okay for the people of Canberra. The Opposition says that they should have something different. Why should they have something different? Is it because members of the Opposition are concerned about democracy? They are not concerned about democracy or whether it is fair. What they are concerned about is whether the Liberal Party of Australia can be in office and whether it can be in office with the support of minority groups and fringe groups that have no chance of gaining majority support under a single-member electorate system. So the Liberal Party wants to stay in office, to the extent that it is in office in the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. The facts are that what we are introducing is a very fair electoral system, in fact so fair that the majority Opposition party in the Federal Parliament would have a fifty-fifty chance of winning office here in Canberra. It has as much chance as the Australian Labor Party of gaining majority support. There are plenty of examples to show that, although one party may be in government in the Federal Parliament, voters are prepared to support people of the opposite political view in a State or other assembly. The Opposition has that opportunity. I must say that the honourable member for Denison always fascinates me. He spoke about a toy town. I am sure that Canberrans would be pleased to know that a former Minister for the Capital Territory considers them to be living in a toy town. Mr Langmore —That is one of the things that keep us in office. Mr SAUNDERSON —I am sure it is. As the honourable member for Fraser says, it is one of the things that keep the Labor Party in office, namely, the shallow attitude of honourable members opposite. What the honourable member for Denison fails to recognise is that people in Canberra have a right to have people who are responsible to them. In the Federal Parliament, they have their two members of the House of Representatives and two senators. What we have here is a former Minister for the Capital Territory talking about the things in which he was involved. I think he mentioned things such as cemeteries, dogs, cats and a few other activities such as the buses. I must say that I was pleased to hear that he agrees with my philosophy on privatisation because he said that, when he was required to have a look at selling off the Australian Capital Territory bus system, he found lots of people who were interested in having the profitable bus routes-they were all prepared to buy, to get into the profitable bus routes-but when it came to servicing the outlying areas where there were no profits there was not a candidate in private enterprise. They just were not interested in that sort of activity. I am glad that the honourable member for Denison is really supporting our philosophical view on privatisation. I am glad to see that, amongst all that thick, cobwebby stuff that resides in his grey matter, there is some semblance of intelligence and a recognition of the right way to go. What he failed to recognise was that he, a person from Tasmania, could stand up here and say all those outlandish things about a Federal government, that he could say anything he liked against the Australian Capital Territory or whatever, and what right did Australian Capital Territory constituents have to respond to it? None at all. They were denied the right of being critical of those people who had responsibility for their future because they had somebody in government who was not elected by them, who was representing another State and who could take decisions on their future, knowing full well that he would not be held responsible for them. We are instituting self-government for the people of Canberra so that they will have the opportunity to elect to constituencies 13 people who will ultimately be responsible to them for all the things that affect them very closely. Sure, people can say that we have not given everything over straight away, that we have not passed over all the responsibilites straight away. No Federal government would do that. No Federal government would hand over, in one throw, all those responsibilities and say: `Here it is. Here are all the things you have to do. You take it up and go away and do it'. A responsible government would say: `It will be progressive. Here is the first level for which you are responsible, so you can establish yourselves and get used to self-government and to making the decisions that you are required to make. Over a progressive period we will hand over further responsibilities to you'. That is what being responsible in government is about. That is why we, as a government, are sitting on the benches on this side of the House and members of the Opposition are on the other side. It is probably a very good reason why, if there is an election-there will be an election in Canberra for self-government for 13 constituencies-we will win that election as well, because people are recognising that members of the Opposition who sit on the Opposition benches are not only totally irresponsible but also totally devoid of ideas and concepts. The honourable member for McPherson and shadow spokesperson for the Territory also said that we were about establishing subservient Labor governments- Mr White —Absolutely. Mr SAUNDERSON —The honourable member says: `Absolutely'. He probably believes that because members of the Opposition attach a bit of dogma to this sort of stuff. All I can say is that when the Premiers Conference is held in Canberra annually all the Premiers turn up- quite remarkably, we have a majority of State Labor Premiers-and quite frankly, I have not noticed many of them being subservient. In fact, the old Liberal-National Party representatives at the Premiers Conference are more likely to concede the results than are the Labor State Premiers. I believe that it is an insult to people who enter politics at any level to say that they are subservient and they are prepared to lie down and cop whatever is given to them. My experience is that people who are given the responsibility for looking after their constituencies at a State level look after them as strongly and as vehemently as they can. Whether they are Australian Labor Party or Liberal Party Premiers, when they come to Canberra, it does not matter whether they face a Liberal-National Party Prime Minister or a Labor Prime Minister, they will argue for their State. They will not walk away and accept some mealy-mouthed deal without argument. To suggest that people in Canberra will elect people who will cop a mealy-mouthed deal just because they are Canberrans and that they are prepared to lie down is an insult to the people in Canberra. I think the honourable member for McPherson has shown his absolute lack of knowledge of people in Canberra. They have never done this with their Federal members and I am sure that they will never do it with the people who will represent them in self-government. I support the Bill for self-government. I think the Government has done the right thing in its legislation. It just dismays me that the Opposition does not recognise that fact and it is not prepared to support it. I know that the Bill will get through this House and I hope that it will get through the Senate. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories)(9.56) —In reply-In all probability there is nothing in this debate which requires an answer from me as the responsible Minister. The Opposition has demonstrated clearly its lack of consideration of the ACT Council Bill and the ACT Council (Consequential Provisions) Bill which are before this House. It has taken a decision and it has failed to take up the offer of professional advice from officers of the Department of Territories on the technical content of this legislation and the meaning of some of the peripheral issues which have been magnified into major issues by a number of people with obvious vested interests in misrepresentation. This legislation represents a compromise; the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) said that. The compromise is an obvious one, and it is interesting to note that both sides of the compromise were advocated by the former Minister, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), during his speech. The Australian Capital Territory is not a State. It is not a Territory, as the Northern Territory was, in the care of the Commonwealth as a permanent or temporary arrangement. The Australian Capital Territory is the national capital. It was created as a result of decisions of the constitutional conventions because it was felt that it was improper for the national Parliament and the national Government to function within the confines of a State which had sovereign powers and which would at times be in some conflict with the authority and powers of the nation. Because the Australian Capital Territory is the national capital and because it is the site of the Commonwealth Government, I suggest that it is not appropriate that it be considered, either now or in the future, as being the site of or the vehicle for the creation of a new State in Australia. The people of Canberra have a right to expect that they will be responsible and accountable for the decisions which affect their day to day lives. Since the creation of the Australian Capital Territory they have, for the major period, been totally disenfranchised from all forms of government. It is only since 1967 that any person representing the people of Canberra has had a vote on any issue other than those very narrow issues which dealt solely with Canberra and for which the former member for Canberra, the Hon. Jim Fraser, and his predecessors had a vote in this Parliament. People have never had any say in the domestic affairs of Canberra and they have never had a say in the municipal affairs of Canberra. I think it is inappropriate to suggest, as the Canberra Times does, that we should transfer from this Parliament to an elected body from the Australian Capital Territory all the powers of a State. The Australian Capital Territory is not a State and it is necessary for us to have a compromise between the interests of this Parliament, the interests of the people of Australia in their national capital and the interests of the people who live in Canberra on a day to day basis, who are entitled to make decisions on the priorities of their day to day life. This Bill moves a long way down that track. It provides far more than domestic municipal powers for the Council. It provides substantially all the administration and responsibilities of a State government, with the exceptions of health, education, police and those functions currently carried out under the general auspices of the Attorney-General. Mr White —The dispute is over how you do it. Mr SCHOLES —I am now told that the dispute is not over what we transfer-and I have to say that there were four Opposition speakers and that they all put a different point of view-but over whether or not the conservative parties in this Parliament are prepared to step across that bridge. They have never been prepared to make that step when they have been in a position of authority. They were in government for eight years, but no progress was made. It is 12 years since this present Assembly was formed, and I suggest to this House that it is inappropriate for it to continue to function in the form in which it is presently structured. It has to have some responsibility to exercise and the necessary independence of thought-independent of the Commonwealth Public Service-to enable it to do so. This Bill provides for that. It would be unfortunate if an elected governing body were not available in Canberra because of the machinations of the politics of this Parliament. The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) keeps asking: `How long have you lived in Canberra?' The fact is that every member of this House, except the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) and the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), both of whom have spoken in this debate, lives elsewhere and the decisions on their life and death as politicians are made elsewhere. The future in this place of the honourable member for McPherson is decided in the electorate of McPherson or in his Party selection processes. Honourable members make decisions in Canberra but are not answerable to the people of Canberra for those decisions. There will always be a situation in which those decisions which affect the day to day lives of Canberrans will be made in this Parliament unless there is a devolution of power to the people of Canberra and the acceptance by the people of Canberra of that responsibility. The honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) made a strange speech. The basis of his speech should have been that Canberra should be responsible for itself, for its own decisions and for the decisions on what revenue will be spent on Canberra. He kept talking about waste of money in Canberra. I do not believe that that is establishable or that the former Minister would agree either. National projects are not the responsibility of the people of Canberra and the people of Canberra do not make the decisions on whether or not they will go ahead. If the conservative parties opposite are worried about expenditures on those national projects, let me say this: Every major national project in Canberra was started by the conservative parties. I do not object to that; it may well be that it is a credit to them. Certainly, those projects mentioned by the honourable member for Fisher all originated with conservative governments, and at least the former Leader of the National Party, Mr Anthony, expresses with pride his role in getting the new and permanent Parliament House through the Fraser Cabinet. This is the national capital and this Bill will provide a major base on which we can build a partnership between the Commonwealth and the people of Canberra in the administration and the responsibilities for decision-making in the Australian Capital Territory. It appears that the difference in opinion arises because the electoral system does not suit some honourable members opposite. We have proposed an electoral system which has been agreed to by a joint committee of this Parliament and which applies in every legislature, every representative legislative chamber in Australia, except for Tasmania. If I may say so for the information of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), the Hare-Clark system works not because of its technical nature but because to date the political parties in Tasmania have abstained from listing candidates in order of preference so that there is not a block vote for a particular political party. Once that happens-and eventually it will; I recognise that it has been resisted so far-the Hare-Clark system will cease to be an effective form by which people will be able to elect their representatives or throw out the representatives of political parties. The end result of bringing in the system which apparently the Opposition supports is that the electors will not elect the government; they will decide how many from each of the political parties' tickets will be elected. After the election, because there will be no prospect of a majority from any side of politics, they will seek to make deals in back rooms to decide who will govern. The people of Canberra will be able neither to elect their governments nor to reject their governments under the types of propositions put forward. In proposing this legislation and proposing self-government, the Government is also proposing that the people of Canberra should elect their government, through their votes, just as happens in relation to members of this House and those of most of the legislatures in Australia. I exclude Queensland, where the honourable member for McPherson comes from, where one does not have to get a majority and where there is a special electoral system which provides for certain people to be elected whether the people want them or not. That is not a system that I favour. Unless a system is available that will enable a majority to be elected and a government or a majority to be rejected by the people, single member electorates constitute the system which is most responsive to the people. It is the people in the electorates who will determine who will represent them, which is more important than a backroom deal. Mr White —What about the House of Assembly now? Mr SCHOLES —The House of Assembly now makes no decisions at all. It does not have a majority and in any given election it is highly unlikely that a majority will be able to be elected. Mr White —Is that a stepping stone to the next step? Mr SCHOLES —Where a Budget of in excess of half a billion dollars will be involved, I believe that, for that expenditure and for the raising of that money, the people of Canberra are entitled to be directly represented by a person who is responsible to them, not to a group of people in a political party who will select them if they are good boys and will not select them if they are not. If the parties put up bad candidates in single member constituencies of the size that we are talking about, bearing in mind the known voting patterns in Canberra, they will be thrown out on their ear; they will not be elected. But they can be hidden in teams when there are votes only for a party. The Opposition parties are not serious about self-government. It is clear that they believe that their electoral standing is at such a low ebb that any device at all, even denying the people of Canberra the right to self-government that they have been denied for so long, should be employed. They would get murdered in a proportional representation election, but they think that, if they can get a system whereby they can make back room deals after an election, they may be able to win in the back room, even if they cannot win at the ballot box. A person who clearly understands electoral systems has said that, under conservative rule, it is not the way that the people vote that counts but the way that they count the votes. That is what honourable members opposite are about right now-rigging a system whereby the people who will pay the taxes, who are going to foot the bill, and who are entitled to express their opinions will be denied the right to do so by a political party that did not even take the trouble to look at the clauses of the Bill. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr C. A. Blanchard) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J. Beddall, D. P. Kent, L. Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C. Brown, John Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. Mildren, J. B. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. GDuncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J. Hurford, C. J. Willis, R. Jacobi, R. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Jenkins, H. A. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M. Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ian Peacock, A. S. Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R. Coleman, W. P. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C. Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W. Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodges, J. C. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Jull, D. J. Milton, P. Andrew, J. N. Keating, P. J. Shipton, R. J. Darling, E. E. Cowan, D. D. Punch, G. F. Hunt, R. J. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! It being past 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Young-Mr Deputy Speaker, I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Scholes) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 19 March, on motion by Mr Scholes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Scholes) read a third time. Motion (by Mr Scholes) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(10.20) —I rise in this debate to condemn the Government's policies, which have resulted in increased charges by Telecom Australia and proposed increases by Australia Post. What we have long suspected has been made clear by some heavy background briefing of journalists by senior Ministers. The Weekend Australian in particular has exposed the Government's inability to cut expenditure. The Government cannot reduce its expenditure by way of a mini-budget in May as it wants to minimise brawling at the Australian Labor Party conference in July. That timetable makes it virtually impossible to have a responsible expenditure outcome in the August Budget. Consequently, we read that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) are going to reduce the deficit not by reducing expenditure but by increasing government charges. In particular they are going to squeeze more funds from Telecom and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. In its perennial quest to meet ballooning expenditure, the Government is plundering the coffers of Australia's main communications authorities. This constant haemorrhaging of essential funds from authorities such as Telecom and OTC means not only that they have to borrow more, and therefore pay more in interest, but also that they will need to increase their charges. Telecom has already announced higher charges for business and non-business subscribers as a direct result of the Government's decision last year to squeeze an extra $100m from Telecom by the simple expedient of raising the interest rate on its borrowings from the Government from 10 per cent to 13.2 per cent. It should be said that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) fought hard to protect Telecom's revenue base from the clutches of the Expenditure Review Committee, but in the end-last year-he was rolled. Given the present economic climate and the fiscal mismanagement of this Government, in all likelihood the Minister will be rolled again. What is significant about these moves is that they are in total contradiction with the recent findings of the Ergas report on Telecommunications and the Australian Economy, which said that there had been a shortfall in capital investment in telecommunications to the tune of $300m. The report said that increases were drastically needed so that the benefits flowing from technological developments here and overseas could flow on to Australians. In an article in today's Australian the Minister for Communications tells an exciting story of the technological innovation of the statutory authorities in his portfolio. What he does not say is that his high spending colleagues and the rapacious Treasurer place in jeopardy the rosy picture he is now painting. When Telecom announced its increase in charges the Minister for Communications said that Telecom has only the choice of borrowing, increasing existing Telecom charges, cutting back on capital works, or a combination of all three options. That statement is an indictment of the Government's general economic policies. The Government's high interest rate policy, together with the disturbingly high overseas debt, makes further borrowing by Telecom prohibitive. It is the fault of the Government's economic policy that the only option mentioned by the Minister which is open to Telecom is to increase its charges. The outcome, of course, is a greater slug to the consumer and a slower rate of development of Australia's vital telecommunications network. Imagine, therefore, how much more damage will be done if Telecom is milked again in the next Budget. OTC has plans for a major investment program in fibre optics and it expects to spend in excess of $1 billion over the next 10 years on the project. In the first five years of this decade OTC paid taxes and dividends to the Commonwealth totalling $238m, leaving only $55m with which to finance essential capital works programs. The Ergas report found that OTC over that time had paid 76 per cent of its net profits to the Federal Government whereas companies listed on the Sydney Stock Exchange paid out 39 per cent of net profits to the Commonwealth in the same period. Recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures confirm this alarming trend in a comparative analysis of Australia with other countries where statutory authorities of this character are concerned. With capital expenditure profiles that are high-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(10.25) —I enter this debate to propose a scheme that I contend will greatly alleviate the problems confronting many Australians, especially those who desire to purchase their own homes. The scheme will also help local authorities-there are over 800 throughout the country-and rural producers, especially those who are faced with debt reconstruction difficulties. What I am proposing, is the establishment of what I have called the Australia Fund, for want of a better name. It is based in many ways on the Reagan farm fund that was introduced some years ago and under which President Reagan offered the American people the opportunity of investing in this fund and getting a return on their money of 7 1/2 per cent, but the real incentive was that they paid no tax on the interest they earned. I am suggesting that we copy that idea, that we establish an Australia fund throughout Australia within the structure of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and that, instead of offering an interest rate of 7 1/2 per cent, we offer the inflation rate. So if the inflation rate is 8.7 per cent that is what we offer; if it falls to 7.5 per cent that is what we offer; if it increases to 9 per cent we offer that. The incentives would be that one did not pay tax on the interest earned. Obviously, the people who would gain most from this scheme would be the aged people, those who have the granny funds, or the grey money, as it is called. Much of this money is put into the Commonwealth Savings Bank and the commercial savings banks and it attracts an interest rate of about 3.75 per cent. Alternatively, people put their money into non-interest bearing deposits. Recently, I asked the Treasury exactly how much money was in savings bank deposits. I found out that across Australia the amount was $39.7 billion. Brian Hale of the Courier-Mail recently estimated that 15 per cent of that amount attracted an interest rate of only 3.75 per cent. It has been estimated that about half of that amount attracts less than 8 per cent. So, on between $20 billion and $7 billion people are getting interest of less than the inflation rate. I believe that if this money were put into an Australia Fund, worked through the Commonwealth Bank-there would be no unnecessary management or establishment costs; one would not have to pay for security of vaults, for example, because those aspects are already in place-we would be able to provide funds across the board, first of all to those who want housing. My estimates are that in the first year of operation alone this type of fund would attract about $10 billion. If we used $3 billion of that for housing we could get about 60,000 housing commencements. We could provide another $3 billion for local authorities. When one considers that in any one year under the special grants scheme we have at the moment they get $537m-we would be providing four times that amount through the Australia Fund. I come back to the rural producers. About $4 billion to $5 billion would be available for rural producers for debt reconstruction or to assist them in those types of rural projects that are aimed mainly at production. We could aim at soil conservation, water conservation, irrigation projects, anti-soil degradation projects, and other such projects. I believe that we could greatly benefit our country. There would be no loss to the economy because when we pour $3 billion into the housing industry there is a flow-on effect of about $12 billion, and one could quickly measure the tax return to the Commonwealth from that improved activity. Pensioners would have to benefit greatly because at the moment any pensioner who earns more than $1,000 interest from bank accounts has to pay provisional tax, and that is a rather hard burden for the aged of our community to bear. Many aged people do not want to put away their savings and attract interest because the interest earned could affect their pensions and fringe benefits. It could also affect their general quality of life. People have said to me that they cannot even put away money to cover their funeral because the interest it would earn would affect their pension now. If we introduced this type of scheme whereby no interest would have to be declared and no tax had to be paid on that interest, we would solve the problem for the pensioner. I believe that the time has come to give the banks some fair competition. On a lot of the $39.7 billion in savings banks deposits the banks are paying 3.75 per cent. However, they have been lending it at 15 and 16 per cent. That has to stop. The local authorities have caught up by paying 14 per cent on the moneys they borrow. We could give it to them for 10 per cent. Whilst we are to have a major statement tomorrow by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), I believe that the Australia Fund could be of major benefit to the rural producers of our country. It worked in America and I believe that there is every reason to say that it could work here. It certainly would be a boost to the important aspects of our economy, local government, housing and the rural sector. It would mean a special benefit for the aged, who certainly need it. It would provide the real competition that I think the banks deserve today. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.30) —Right now, in front of Parliament House there is a man who feels so aggrieved about his treatment by law enforcement agencies that he has started a hunger strike. This man, Mr Mick Skrijel, feels that he has been victimised and denied natural justice. This man has had his house burnt down, his fishing boat burnt, and has been assaulted. His family have been intimidated and his fishing business is in ruins. What was his crime? Mr Skrijel claims that his big mistake was to try to bring to the attention of the South Australian police the fact that drugs were being brought into the country through drops off the coast. Mr Skrijel claims that the fishing boat operating next to his was part of the drug pick-up. One would think the responsible thing to do would be to report such an incident to the police. That is exactly what Mr Skrijel did. It seems that this was his big mistake. From that moment on, Mr Skrijel found himself on the wrong side with almost everyone. He found it impossible to continue fishing in South Australia. He moved his fishing to Portland in Victoria, but the harassment of Mr Skrijel and his family has continued. Despite Mr Skrijel complaining to members of the Victorian police force, he has not been taken seriously. Despite Mr Skrijel having to spend days in hospital after being assaulted, no charges were laid. However, due to Mr Skrijel's persistence, now, three years after the incident, assault charges will be laid. In 1984 Mr Skrijel took his problems to the National Crime Authority. The National Crime Authority spent two days interviewing Mr Skrijel, but to date nothing has been done. In fact it was reported that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) went as far as to state that the allegations were without foundation. Despite this, Mr Skrijel has persisted with his claims about drug smuggling in south-west Victoria and the south-east of South Australia. He feels that justice has been denied. The questions he raises cannot be ignored, especially with the Government making so much of the drug offensive. Why have these allegations of Mr Skrijel apparently been ignored? Why, when there are repeated rumours of drugs coming into the country from the border area between Victoria and South Australia, does it appear that so little is being done? This matter is extremely serious, and it covers more than one State. I call on the Federal Government immediately to initiate a full inquiry into Mr Skrijel's allegations. Such an inquiry should be conducted by the Australian Federal Police. Both the Attorney-General and the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) should involve themselves and make sure that this happens. It is only by holding such an inquiry that the Government will be able fully to investigate the very serious allegations raised by Mr Skrijel. Not only should this inquiry be held, but it should be announced straight away. Right now a man is suffering in a hunger strike because he believes that it is the only way he can get his case heard. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(10.35) —Tonight I mention our national day of mourning, Anzac Day, because of two incidents which occurred at the weekend. On Saturday, at my interviews at Homebush, I was approached by an old digger, a First World War returned serviceman named Jimmy Hallinan, who is 90 years old. Jim spent three years in France during the First World War. He was well known in Sydney for having battled the Sydney Farm Produce Market Authority when it established markets at Flemington in my electorate. He led the fight to stop the pensioners being evicted. He lives in splendid isolation, all the properties around him having been resumed and the cottages pulled down. He approached me about a report he had heard that the Sydney markets would be open all day on Anzac Day. He said: `Can't you do something about that? Anzac Day is a responsibility of the Federal Government. Can't you do something so that we remember our mates, something in honour of our mates?' He pointed out to me that the fruit market will be open until 9 a.m. It will then close down, the place will be cleaned up and the stall holders will start setting up at 10 a.m. The market will open on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, as it does every other week of the year. Jimmy Hallinan has suggested that the Sydney Market Authority should not allow trading in the market until 12 noon in respect for the dead, for those who gave their lives in the two main wars and in other wars. I agree entirely with Jimmy Hallinan that there should be some respect for those who gave their lives for our nation. I call upon the Sydney Market Authority, if this complaint is true, to use its best endeavours. The market area is leased to the thousands of stall holders who occupy the area selling their wares, such as clothing, food and so on. But I feel that on Anzac Day there should be some mark of respect for the dead, particularly in an area such as Flemington, which is an extremely ethnic part of Australia, so that people who have come to Australia to build our wonderful land can note that Anzac Day is a day when one does not just trade and make money. It is a day when at least some time is given over to remembering what has happened, those people who gave their lives, who were injured or who still suffer as a result of fighting an enemy of this country-people who fought and died to give us the peace we now enjoy. Yesterday, the very next day, I was near the markets, at Rookwood Cemetery, at the annual service of the Merchant Navy and Allied War Services Association. I was appalled to note that this group has no national memorial. There is no memorial in the Australian Capital Territory, in our national capital, for the merchant navy. Thousands of Australians gave their lives, particularly in World War II-but also in World War I-in the merchant navy. There is a memorial to the merchant navy in Melbourne. I hope that the Government can do something. A site near the new Parliament House would be a most appropriate place to have a national memorial to the merchant navy. I gave an undertaking to the merchant navy representatives yesterday to raise this matter with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) and with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and try to get something moving. They have been engaging in correspondence, but to date nothing has happened. They wanted the Queen to lay a wreath at the new memorial in Melbourne, but it was not appropriate. There may have been many logistic reasons for that, or problems with the Queen's itinerary. They were disappointed. We must recognise this branch of the services because the merchant navy does become a service during a war. It is part of the war effort. I am raising these matters slightly in advance of Anzac Day, our national day of mourning, in the hope, firstly, that the Sydney Market Authority can take action to ensure that Anzac Day is not just a normal trading day and that there is even some remembrance ceremony, with a bit of luck, or at least some time when the markets will be closed so that the people who go to the markets will note that Australians have not forgotten, and secondly, that some action will be taken in regard to a national memorial to the merchant navy. Mr KATTER(Kennedy)(10.38) —When will this Government realise that people in the remote areas of this nation, who pour into the national Treasury billions of dollars each year, are now under siege? Move after move by the Government is striking deeply at the morale of non-metropolitan communities. This situation is virtually ignored by Australian Labor Party members in many of these remote areas. They pay lip service and make inane Press releases, but do they ever have the guts to get into Caucus and tell their Fuhrer that his contempt for rural people must cease? There was a lot of glib talk when we lost our television studios in Cairns, Rockhampton and Townsville, but never was a protest lodged, fairly and squarely, to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). What have they done to support the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) in his stand to prevent the Prime Minister from regulating the satellite television services in a manner which would hand over to the television tycoons the control which would virtually strip our regional groups of any effective participation? Shades of Goebbels! I will certainly have much more to say on this matter on another occasion. Now comes a blow which has caused deep and accelerating concern to our young families seeking child care for their children. This Government talks about its care for women-what women? It certainly does not mean young wives and mothers. I represent hundreds of these wonderful people. I will never cease to do everything possible-I know that you would commend this, Madam Speaker-to have the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) and the Government reconsider the new funding proposals for child care. Let us look at the expected results of this new funding scheme. First, parents cannot afford and will not pay huge increases in fees. This will result in a lower fee intake, leaving the following options: Increasing fees even further to cover existing costs and reducing staff numbers, with trained and qualified staff the first to go as they are the most expensive. Secondly, children will be placed in circumstances which do not optimise the social and educational development that is so vital for children under the age of five; that is, they will be placed in unqualified, unregistered care. Thirdly, children will face an increased risk of being left alone at home, or risk child abuse. In isolated communities there would be little or no family support for mothers wanting respite. Fourthly, the fee increase is too large for women on low incomes who would be paying one-quarter to one-third of their wage on child care. This will force these women to give up work. Fifthly, staff will be laid off in regions where underemployment of women is already a serious problem. Sixthly, the gross income figure for fee relief does not take into account regional variations in the cost of living. For example, in Mount Isa, where I live, residents may have higher incomes, but the cost of living is 25 per cent or more higher than in most coastal centres. Gross income is not a true indication of ability to pay. Seventhly-forgive me for again citing a mining town, but problems in a mining town affect the whole community-during an industrial dispute, or even the threat of one, parents will feel it necessary to withdraw children immediately from child care. At such times, child care centres will find it difficult to meet the cost of staff wages. Although the Labor Government states that an extra $100m will be spent on child care facilities in the next three years, the existing centres in areas such as those I represent are worried that they will have to close down. The new fees will particularly hit the two-working-parent families with an income of $26,000 to $32,000. The fees will rise from $1.50 to approximately $2 per hour. Many families are forced to have both the husband and wife in the work force because of the high cost of living and the increase in interest rates. The fees will rise from approximately $60 per week to $80 per week per child. No discounts are allowed for second and third children. I consider this to be one of the most critical issues in the areas with which I am associated and one of my most serious responsibilities. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(10.43) —I pay tribute to the Illawarra Steelers Rugby League Football Club. Yesterday, they came of age in the New South Wales rugby league premiership. Many honourable members, having followed rugby league-which is, after all, the greatest game of all-would know that the Illawarra Steelers have been participating in the Sydney competition for only four years. Illawarra, traditionally, has been a nursery of rugby league players and has provided many fine examples of players who have gone on to represent Australia. Graeme Langlands, Bob Fulton, Craig Young and Steven Morris are four former and current players who have worn the green and gold for Australia. Gary Jack and Steven Roach, both playing for Balmain, have also represented Australia in the last season or so. In their initial year in the competition, the Steelers did not perform very well, it would be fair to say. In their second year, however, they finished only one place out of the final five. That is not a bad effort, given some of the adverse circumstances that face the club, particularly when one thinks about sponsorship problems, the fact that it was one of the newer clubs in the competition and that it had a great deal of trouble just getting together the funding-often reaching $1m these days-which is necessary to put a team in the paddock for a first grade competition. In the year before last, however, they won the President's Cup, which, as honourable members who follow the game know, is the under-21 competition-again, not a bad effort. Last year, through a variety of circumstances and despite some very close results, they managed to finish last in the competition. However, 1986 promised to be the start of a new era. I am glad that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) is listening to this. It was a new era because they had, amongst other things, attracted a very important sponsorship deal. The steel division of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, from Port Kembla, had ploughed in $100,000 per season for the next three years. The local radio station, 2OO, also had put in a great deal of funding, and expertise, particularly on the promotional side of things. Many other junior sponsors were also involved in the development of the opportunity to purchase players-Collegians Rugby League Football Club, the Western Suburbs Club and a number of other groups. The results of this infusion of funding and the infusion of enthusiasm from those players who were purchased during the off season have been amply demonstrated in the last few weeks. The year started with a very narrow loss to North Sydney. They then defeated Canberra-I am very pleased to say. There was a very narrow loss again to South Sydney, and then there was that very important game against Parramatta, when for most of the game they had the mighty Eels down, only to lose 12-8 on the bell. Then followed a rather poor effort against Manly. But yesterday, the headlines proclaimed: `Humiliated: Axes poised to fall after Steelers romp'. We saw Illawarra, 22, defeat St George, 8. Tonight I should like to extend my commiserations to a number of people. First, I extend commiserations to the Honourable the President of the Senate, to Senator Graham Richardson, to the honourable member for St George (Mr Dubois), to the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch), and to the secretary of the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Labor Party-all of whom are very strong St George supporters. I should like to particularly praise the coach, Brian Smith, and the 13 players who took the field for the Steelers yesterday at the Sydney Cricket Ground. I also extend my congratulations to the Committee on its far-sightedness in putting together a very good team for 1986, particularly to Brian Kurtz, the President, and Bob Millward, the Secretary of the Club, and the other hard-working committee members. If honourable members look at the record of this great club over the last four years, they will see that, whilst it might be only a junior in the competition, the result from yesterday promises that, in future games during the coming year we shall see the Steelers going on to bigger and better things. Given that there has been a total change in what has traditionally been the type of teams that one would see in the top five, there is every chance that the Steelers will figure prominently at the end of this year in the final five calculations, and a semi-final berth is not beyond the realms of this particular team. My congratulations again are extended to the whole team, particularly to centre Brian Hetherington, the captain, and the hooker, Michael Bolt, who are also local products of the Illawarra district and have been representing this club since its inception in the Sydney first grade competition. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(10.48) —If it had been 1 April, I would have thought that we had just heard a classical April Fool's Day joke from the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin)-and I am one who subscribes to the slogan that rugby league is the greatest game of all. In talking about April Fool's Day, I point out that the AM program reported on 2 April that on April Fool's Day in Great Britain, the Daily Mail said that the royal wedding would be postponed for a week because Prince Charles was off to the Himalayas to hunt butterflies. The Star reported, exclusively, that the wedding would be telecast in black and white because the British Broadcasting Corporation's colour resources had been earmarked for the Commonwealth Games. London commercial radio gave false time calls, causing thousands to be an hour early for work. The Today newspaper carried the story of one of Buckingham Palace's best kept secrets-the 500-year-old ceremonial guard of pikemen, never seen before by the public, was under threat because of defence budget cuts, the story going on to say that the six pikemen were all under 5ft 5in tall because they originally had to guard the royal treasures in a low-ceilinged room. Here in Canberra the front page of the newspaper carried a story about a third bridge-I can hardly contain myself-to go over Lake Burley Griffin. It even went so far as to explain, under an artist's impression of the planned bridge: This is an artist's impression of the planned third bridge across Lake Burley Griffin. Government House can be seen just under the bridge. The article says: Houses along at least one street in Yarralumla will be resumed and demolished and the street widened. I only wish I could incorporate this article in Hansard. It is an extremely clever set-up and obviously a lot of people in Canberra were taken in. They probably woke up the next day or later that day, realising what suckers they were. We then find that back in sleepy Brisbane town an audacious editor of a small throw-away newspaper called the Southern Star ran on page 3 an article captioned `Bulldozers rip up Toohey Forest Park'. In big, thick print down the bottom it says: `This is bigger than Lindeman'. We all know about Lindeman Island. The article says that at the top of this park, which is on the edge of my electorate, a building will be put up which will be the highest in south-east Queensland. The article goes on: Already, a statement in principle has been forwarded to Mr Iwasaki, in Japan, and we are hoping he will do the same thing with Toohey Forest Park as he has done with that scrub country near Yeppoon. It is said that it will turn sleepy old Brisbane into the Los Angeles of the South Pacific, and a spokesman was reported to have said: We do not expect any opposition from the `Greenies' as Toohey Forest Park has no intrinsic value to conservationists. Ha, ha! It says also that big cables will be put in to bring in electricity so the workers can work 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The article continues: In addition, extra pylons would have to be erected between Toohey Forest and the major power stations as millions of kilowatts of electricity will be needed for the massive tungsten-carbon lighting system designed to ensure our workers are not impeded by darkness. This system is so powerful that householders as far away as Sunnybank Hills and Fairfield will be able to read their Southern Star out in their front yards even at midnight. One of those places is in my electorate and another is in my former electorate, so I know them quite well. They are about four miles from Toohey Forest Park. There is then a touch of humour: Some people might be a little concerned at the prospect. . . but so long as they know what day it is there will be no real problems. Do honourable members know what happened to the author of this article, this father of three young children under six years of age? He has been sacked because of the article. In the 20 years I have been here I have never used this place to make a contribution like this. However, the matter will go to a Federal arbitration court so there is a link between this matter and my Federal position. I do not think I have ever seen anything so stinkingly callous and mean in my whole life. Granted, some of my constituents and some constituents of the honourable member for Forde (Dr Watson) and the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) were taken in by the article but April Fools Day has been going on for hundreds of years and always thousands, probably millions, of people have been taken in. The author of this article has done nobody any harm and I do not understand the mentality of the people who have sacked him. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.54) —Last week I made some comments about Mr Holmes a Court's abuse of the financial columns of his newspaper. I mentioned the outrageous persecution of a company in Western Australia called DTX Australia Ltd. I did not say that Mr Tim Tredgold wrote those articles; I mentioned his name in conjunction with wider matters which I did not get time to raise but which I will address tonight. Firstly, I want to return to the DTX matter, about which the Western Mail wrote so many stories. The stories were written by Mr Martin Saxon and the Western Mail says that it stands by them. One may ask: Stands by what? The Corporate Affairs Commission found nothing and this last attack, a couple of weeks ago, was so trivial that it was really an attack about nothing at all. It was, in the full sense of the word, a non-story. It would, however, serve to frighten many small investors in the market, and for that reason I believe it was reprehensible. Mr Saxon, journalist of long standing though he may be, stands for nothing. This is apparently the stuff that the fearless new breed of journalists are made of. I wonder whether Mr Saxon found the DTX story as rewarding as his recent attack on Mr Alan Bond, a man who, for all his faults, has made a great contribution to Australia and has contributed mightily to the development, recognition and advancement of this country, a claim that Mr Holmes a Court would find hard to justify. DTX is a company that in a sense has achieved the impossible as it is exporting electronic equipment to South East Asia. It is an electronic medium which has mass appeal and a great future. Mr Holmes a Court has challenged me to say outside this place what I have said inside. I can assure Mr Holmes a Court that I am not as green as I am cabbage looking and I will not be doing that just yet. Besides, I might add that he has never shied away from being both judge and jury in the court of the media. I do not see why he should now object to being tried in that same court. He says categorically that he has never used his paper to press his own interests. I have had calls from many journalists who say that this is not so. These people stress that I must not use their names, for they believe he has the power, the memory and the vindictive nature to make it difficult for them if they are identified. I would now like to turn to the matter I raised in which I used Mr Tim Tredgold's name. I refer to diamonds and the Argyle joint venture in my electorate. Mr Tredgold, writing under his pseudonym in the Business Review Weekly, has continually bagged the Western Australian diamond venture. He has continually written the diamonds off as being of low quality. He has said that they explode on cutting. All of these things are not borne out by the facts. People overseas are beginning to recognise that many high quality diamonds are coming out of the Argyle joint venture. By continually attacking the diamonds and devaluing shares in this way, the paper does no service to Australia and certainly not to my electorate. It would be interesting to know who is pursuing this matter and who is buying the shares that are being driven down by this device. What happened, of course, is that Mr Tredgold, a man for whom I cannot find much sympathy among reputable journalists, started to contribute articles to the Business Review Weekly. He was fed by Mr Holmes a Court and senior people in the Holmes a Court organisation. Consequently, he got some good stories out. This made the Business Review Weekly rather dependent on him. Having been suckered in, it continued to run him continuously and he became Mr Holmes a Court's front man to peddle his line in the eastern States. I am sure that in this way he has served Mr Holmes a Court very well. The Western Australian Government has a 5 per cent stake in the Argyle joint venture and its interests are not being served by this continual bagging. I must pay tribute to the work of Jan Maidment, an Age journalist of high repute who, I believe, has received two Walkley awards. She has done a lot to bring this matter to the attention of Australia. It is unfortunate that her writing has not had the coverage that it really deserves and that the full details of the allegations that she has outlined have not been fully recognised by the Australian people. I say that such a man is not the person to hold the control of a company the size of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, with the very large share that that company has of the stock exchange value of this country. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(10.59) —I rise to reply to some of the matters that were raised during the adjournment debate this evening by the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), particularly his comments regarding the findings of what has become known as the Ergas report. I refer to the report entitled `Telecommunications and the Australian Economy' by Dr Henry Ergas, the Principal Administrator of the Planning and Evaluation Unit, Secretary-General's Office, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris. The comments made by the honourable member for Goldstein indicate what a total mess the Opposition is in. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr Duffy —I require the debate to be extended. Madam SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(11.00) —This clearly indicates the mess the Liberals are in on this important issue of privatisation. The views expressed by the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), as the shadow Minister for Communications, would be in stark contrast to those two infamous advocates of privatisation, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the hapless shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). They have been trumpeting their views about privatisation, although sometimes it is difficult even to understand what they are about. It is not as easy to find any view expressed clearly on this matter by the honourable member for Goldstein, who spoke in the adjournment debate tonight. He has been strangely quiet on this issue, and one wonders at times when his views will become known. One suspects that it is again one of those situations where there is a clear rift within the Opposition ranks. It should, however, be mentioned that when the honourable member for Goldstein moved into this area, it was during the industrial dispute in Australia Post in November of last year. As far as I can ascertain, that was the only time we had any indication of his views on privatisation, and they were certainly not direct. At that stage he was advocating that during periods of industrial dispute the Australia Post monopoly on letters should be removed. It is worth quoting what he said on that occasion: The amendment will give the Minister for Communications the power to suspend the monopoly provisions when by reason of an industrial dispute or for any other reason the Australian Postal Commission is unable to operate its postal services in such a manner as will meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the Australian people for postal services. That indicated at that stage very little change in what had gone on during the Fraser-Howard years. That sort of provocative statement envisaged moving in and taking that sort of action in a time of industrial dispute. It involved provocation, confrontation with unions, and the obvious dislike of public enterprise which is so inherent among so many Opposition members. It is interesting to note what happened as a result of that dispute, without the sort of absurd intervention suggested by the honourable member for Goldstein. In 1984-86, 88 per cent of mail was delivered to meet service standards. Of that figure of 88 per cent, unfortunately in New South Wales only 76 per cent of mail was delivered to meet service standards. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. As no other Minister has risen, he may continue for another five minutes. Mr DUFFY —It is pleasing to note that in the March quarter to 1986, 94 per cent of mail has been delivered to meet service standards, as opposed to 88 per cent in 1984-85; and in New South Wales the figure of mail delivered to meet service standards has reached 91 per cent, as opposed to the figure of 76 per cent in 1984-85. So rather than suspending the monopoly of Australia Post during industrial disputes, it is quite clear that what was necessary was to attack the problem in New South Wales and that was done by the management of Australia Post. With the co-operation of the unions and all the employees of Australia Post we are now able to say that that standard of mail delivery has been reached which is, in fact, quite extraordinary when we consider that for 1984-85 it was 76 per cent, and as I indicated for the quarter to March 1986 it has gone to 91 per cent. I would like to move to the Ergas report on Telecommunications and the Australian Economy because there are some matters in it that I think are necessary to point out to the honourable member for Goldstein. His attack tonight was basically on the basis that Dr Ergas said that there had been under-investment in telecommunications in Australia. That is not denied, but I refer the honourable member to page 3 of the Ergas report where in the summary of chapter 5 it states: . . . McKinsey and Company found that achieving reasonable growth objectives for the Australian network required an 8 per cent increase in real terms in Telecom's annual investment during the 1980s. This increase did not occur. Particularly under the previous coalition Government, severe constraints were imposed on the authorities' investment programs, which were only partially eased in 1983-84. I repeat the point that particularly under the previous coalition Government, severe constraints were imposed. That summary is on page 3 of the report and is repeated in chapter 5 which begins at page 45. On page 47 the report again states: In fact, the recommended investment levels were not fully implemented; particularly in 1980-82, Telecom's capital expenditure was severely curtailed. That was during the period of the Fraser Government when the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was Treasurer, and throughout that period, of course, the honourable member for Goldstein was a Minister of that Government. As I indicated earlier I am not disputing that Dr Ergas does say that there has been an under-investment, but he points out that it was particularly the years 1980 to 1982 when in his words `capital expenditure was severely curtailed'. In his speech tonight the honourable member for Goldstein referred to Overseas Telecommunications Commission. I would like to turn to the OTC for one moment. If we look at OTC we will see how Australia's telecommunication providers were squeezed mercilessly during the Fraser years. It was an absolutely unbelievable performance. When we calculate the percentage that dividend payments constituted of net profits after tax, one sees the following pattern: In 1985, under the Hawke Government, they constituted 41 per cent; and in 1984, under the Hawke Government, 61 per cent. Then we start with the Fraser years: In 1983 they constituted 77 per cent; in 1982, 95 per cent of after tax profit; in 1979, 97 per cent and in 1977, 99 per cent. That is the record of the Fraser Government. Figures such as 95 per cent, 97 per cent and 99 per cent.-- Mr Macphee —How would you describe the record of the Hawke Government? Mr DUFFY —The pattern of the vicious contraction under the Fraser-Howard Government is clear. The honourable member interjects. It is clear to date that the present Government, unlike is predecessor, has a reasonable record in this regard. Obviously, telecommunications authorities need to fund enormous capital funds out of a mixture-- Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11.10 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2.15 p.m. or at such time thereafter as I take the chair. House adjourned at 11.10 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 14 April 1986: Fisheries Act- Notices, Nos. 164, 165. Plan of Management-No. 4-Northern Prawn Fishery Management Plan (Amendment). Public Service Act-Determination-1986-No. 19. Telecommunications Act-Australian Telecommunications Commission-By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts)-Amendment No. 65 Telecommunications (Community Calls)-Amendment No. 42. Telecommunications (General)-Amendment No. 48.